Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 25 JULY 2016

Canada Takes A Pass As Nishikawa Rubber Pays $130m Fine In US

Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP
Explore more from Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP

The Competition Bureau recently decided not to recommend charges against an autoparts maker who rigged bids, because the cars containing their parts were mostly sold in the US.

CanadaAntitrust/Competition Law
Christophe CinqMars-Viau, Summer Student
Christophe CinqMars-Viau, Summer Student
Author LinkedIn connections

The Competition Bureau recently decided not to recommend charges against an autoparts maker who rigged bids, because the cars containing their parts were mostly sold in the US. Instead, it cooperated with the US Department of Justice its investigation.

As a result, Hiroshima based Nishikawa Rubber pleaded guilty in the US to rigging bids for body sealing parts (BSPs) from 2000 to 2012. BSPs keep the interiors of cars dry, protected and quiet.

Nishikawa was fined US$130 million. This amount includes a penalty for the over $200-million of rigged sales to Canadian-based car manufacturers, including Toyota and Honda. Since the cars for which the BSPs were used were mostly bound for sale in the US, the investigation required "unprecedented" cooperation between the DOJ's Antitrust Division and the Bureau.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Competition Bureau Reaches Consent Agreement With Empire Company Limited Regarding Grocery Property Controls

The Competition Bureau of Canada has entered into a consent agreement with Empire Company Limited, parent of major grocery chains including Sobeys and Safeway, restricting the company's use of property controls that limit competition. This agreement prohibits Empire from enforcing certain restrictive covenants and exclusivity clauses that prevent other grocers from operating nearby, despite Empire's earlier voluntary commitments. The Bureau's action signals heightened regulatory scrutiny of property control
CanadaAntitrust/Competition Law
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Article

Greenwashing In Canada: What The Competition Bureau’s 2026 Updated Environmental Claims Guidelines Mean For Your Business

Canada's Competition Bureau has released updated guidelines addressing environmental claims and greenwashing under the Competition Act. The guidelines establish six compliance principles and clarify how businesses must substantiate environmental benefit claims following recent legislative amendments, including changes introduced by Bill C-15 that provide greater flexibility in substantiation methods while maintaining evidence requirements.
CanadaAntitrust/Competition Law
WeirFoulds LLP
WeirFoulds LLP
Article

Cassels On Competition: October 2026

More particularly, the Plaintiff had argued that the drip pricing provision in subsection 52(1.3) of the Competition Act requires “all-inclusive pricing” and forbids all forms of “fragmented or segmented pricing,” and that Ticketmaster’s partitioned price representations are thus prohibited as a criminal conduct and amount to false or misleading representations covered by the criminal misleading advertising provision in section 52
CanadaAntitrust/Competition Law
Cassels
Cassels