<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!--Generated by Squarespace Site Server v5.11.81 (http://www.squarespace.com/) on Thu, 16 Feb 2012 06:13:14 GMT--><feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"><title>News &amp; Press</title><subtitle>News &amp; Press</subtitle><id>http://www.branchmacmaster.com/news-and-press/</id><link rel="alternate" type="application/xhtml+xml" href="http://www.branchmacmaster.com/news-and-press/"/><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.branchmacmaster.com/news-and-press/atom.xml"/><updated>2011-03-29T21:06:55Z</updated><generator uri="http://www.squarespace.com/" version="Squarespace Site Server v5.11.81 (http://www.squarespace.com/)">Squarespace</generator><entry><title>Credit Card Class Action</title><id>http://www.branchmacmaster.com/news-and-press/2011/3/29/credit-card-class-action.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.branchmacmaster.com/news-and-press/2011/3/29/credit-card-class-action.html"/><author><name>Branch MacMaster</name></author><published>2011-03-29T20:55:16Z</published><updated>2011-03-29T20:55:16Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-CA"><![CDATA[<h2 class="title"><a class="journal-entry-navigation-current" href="http://creditcardclassaction.com/home/class-action-filed-against-visa-mastercard-and-leading-banks.html">Class Action Filed Against Visa, Mastercard, and Leading Banks Over Alleged Price Fixing&nbsp;Conspiracy</a></h2>
<p><strong>VANCOUVER (March 29, 2011) --</strong>&nbsp;Branch MacMaster LLP and Camp Fiorante Matthews filed a proposed national class action in the British Columbia Supreme Court against Visa, MasterCard, and several leading banks. The claim alleges that the credit card giants and banks have engaged in a multi-billion dollar price fixing conspiracy to increase or maintain the fees paid by merchants on every credit card transaction.</p>
<p>When a customer pays with a credit card, Visa and MasterCard take a percentage fee, along with the card-issuing bank and the company that processes the payment. That percentage varies depending on what kind of card is used. Basic cards charge a smaller percentage, while premium credit cards that offer points and other rewards cost merchants a much higher fee.</p>
<p>The claim alleges that Visa and MasterCard rules force merchants to accept every Visa or MasterCard credit card, even if those cards carry high fees for the merchant. The claim also alleges that these rules prevent merchants from charging more for payments with premium cards.</p>
<p>Ward Branch, partner at Branch MacMaster LLP said, &ldquo;The lawsuit alleges that merchants are forced to raise prices for all customers to cover the cost of transactions with premium cards. Our research suggests that these fees cost Canadian merchants $5 billion in 2009 alone. The system is bad for Canadian merchants, Canadian consumers, and for the Canadian economy as a whole.&rdquo;</p>
<p>The suit follows a filing by the Competition Bureau of Canada, which seeks to prevent Visa and MasterCard from imposing the rules preventing surcharges and forcing merchants to honour all cards. This proposed class action seeks to recover the fees that Visa, MasterCard, and the banks are alleged to have collected illegally from merchants.</p>
<p>Along with Visa and MasterCard, the suit names BMO Financial Group, Bank of Nova Scotia, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Desjardins, National Bank of Canada, Royal Bank of Canada, Toronto-Dominion Bank, Bank of America, Capital One, and Citygroup Inc. as defendants.</p>
<p><strong>Contacts:</strong></p>
<p>Greg McMullen<br />Branch MacMaster LLP<br /><a href="mailto:gmcmullen@branmac.com">gmcmullen@branmac.com</a>&nbsp;604-631-2560</p>
<p>Reidar Mogerman<br />Camp Fiorante Matthews<br /><a href="mailto:rmogerman@cfmlawyers.ca">rmogerman@cfmlawyers.ca</a>&nbsp;604-331-9530</p>
<p><a href="http://creditcardclassaction.com/">http://creditcardclassaction.com/</a></p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>BC Court of Appeal Affirms Settlement Approval in Chocolate Case</title><id>http://www.branchmacmaster.com/news-and-press/2011/1/18/bc-court-of-appeal-affirms-settlement-approval-in-chocolate.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.branchmacmaster.com/news-and-press/2011/1/18/bc-court-of-appeal-affirms-settlement-approval-in-chocolate.html"/><author><name>Branch MacMaster</name></author><published>2011-01-18T21:51:08Z</published><updated>2011-01-18T21:51:08Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-CA"><![CDATA[<p>The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed&nbsp;today&nbsp;the appeal brought in relation to the approval of the partial settlement of an action brought for the alleged price-fixing and price-maintenance of chocolate products.&nbsp; Ward K. Branch and Luciana P. Brasil acted for the successful Plaintiff in the appeal, together with J.J. Camp Q.C., Reidar Mogerman and David Jones of Camp Fiorante Matthews.</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Court of Appeal Dismisses Appeal in Oppression Action</title><id>http://www.branchmacmaster.com/news-and-press/2010/12/17/court-of-appeal-dismisses-appeal-in-oppression-action.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.branchmacmaster.com/news-and-press/2010/12/17/court-of-appeal-dismisses-appeal-in-oppression-action.html"/><author><name>Branch MacMaster</name></author><published>2010-12-17T22:22:07Z</published><updated>2010-12-17T22:22:07Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-CA"><![CDATA[<p>In oral reasons for judgment released on December 17, 2010, the British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal launched by minority shareholders in relation to the dismissal of their oppression Petition against Ross Stanfield, Bul River Mineral Corporation and Gallowai Metal Mining Corporation. Luciana Brasil was counsel for the corporate respondents.</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>$50M Proposed Class Action Filed in Relation to Copyright Violations</title><id>http://www.branchmacmaster.com/news-and-press/2010/11/12/50m-proposed-class-action-filed-in-relation-to-copyright-vio.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.branchmacmaster.com/news-and-press/2010/11/12/50m-proposed-class-action-filed-in-relation-to-copyright-vio.html"/><author><name>Branch MacMaster</name></author><published>2010-11-12T19:42:59Z</published><updated>2010-11-12T19:42:59Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-CA"><![CDATA[<p>On November 12, 2010, a proposed class action was filed by Keatley Surveying Ltd. against Teranet Inc. in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.&nbsp; In the Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff alleges that Teranet Inc. has made certain unauthorized use of drawings, maps, plans and charts created or owned by the Plaintiff and other Ontario land surveyors,&nbsp; contary to the provisions of the federal Copyright Act, and claims damages of $50M, and other relief.</p>
<p>The claim is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and of a proposed class comprised of land surveyors in Ontario.</p>
<p>Ward Branch and Luciana Brasil of Branch MacMaster LLP are counsel for the Plaintiff and for the proposed class, together with William O'Hara of Gardiner Roberts LLP.</p>
<p>We are updating our website and will soon have a page dedicated to this action. For more information in the meantime, please contact Luciana Brasil at <a href="mailto:lbrasil@branmac.com">lbrasil@branmac.com</a> or (604) 654-2960.</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Class Action Lawsuit Filed re: Price-fixing of Polyurethane Foam</title><id>http://www.branchmacmaster.com/news-and-press/2010/9/24/class-action-lawsuit-filed-re-price-fixing-of-polyurethane-f.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.branchmacmaster.com/news-and-press/2010/9/24/class-action-lawsuit-filed-re-price-fixing-of-polyurethane-f.html"/><author><name>Branch MacMaster</name></author><published>2010-09-24T23:59:50Z</published><updated>2010-09-24T23:59:50Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-CA"><![CDATA[<p>A <a href="http://www.branchmacmaster.com/polyurethane-class-action/">proposed class action</a> was commenced in relation to an alleged&nbsp;price-fixing conspiracy in relation to polyurethane foam. The claim was filed against Vitafoam Products Canada Limited and a number of other manufacturers of polyurethane foam in Canada and in the United States. A complete list of the defendants will be posted in our <a href="http://www.branchmacmaster.com/polyurethane-class-action/">Polyurethane Foam Class Action</a> page.&nbsp; Luciana Brasil and Ward Branch are counsel for the Plaintiff and for the proposed class.</p>
<p>If you purchased any polyurethane foam from 1999 onwards, and would like to obtain more information about these proceedings, please contact Ulla Herlev at <a href="mailto:uherlev@branmac.com">uherlev@branmac.com</a> or (604) 654-2964.</p>
<p>The claim has been <a href="http://www.cba.org/ClassActions/class_2010/britishcolumbia/Main/09-24-10_Vitafoam.aspx">registered</a> in the National Class Action Registry maintained by the Canadian Bar Association.</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Branch MacMaster amongst Vancouver's top business law firms</title><id>http://www.branchmacmaster.com/news-and-press/2010/8/26/branch-macmaster-amongst-vancouvers-top-business-law-firms.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.branchmacmaster.com/news-and-press/2010/8/26/branch-macmaster-amongst-vancouvers-top-business-law-firms.html"/><author><name>Branch MacMaster</name></author><published>2010-08-26T14:51:48Z</published><updated>2010-08-26T14:51:48Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-CA"><![CDATA[<p>Financial Post (August 26, 2010) names Branch MacMaster amongst Vancouver's top business law firms with strengths listed to include class actions, insurance defence, and health law litigation. The full article is available online at the <a href="http://bit.ly/c75QcC" target="_blank">Vancouver Sun</a>.</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Expansion of Voluntary Recall of Dry Pet Foods Announced</title><id>http://www.branchmacmaster.com/news-and-press/2010/8/16/expansion-of-voluntary-recall-of-dry-pet-foods-announced.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.branchmacmaster.com/news-and-press/2010/8/16/expansion-of-voluntary-recall-of-dry-pet-foods-announced.html"/><author><name>Branch MacMaster</name></author><published>2010-08-16T16:57:49Z</published><updated>2010-08-16T16:57:49Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-CA"><![CDATA[<p>P&amp;G announced an expansion of the voluntary recall of certain Iams and Eukanuba dry pet foods due to potential salmonella contamination. Whille P&amp;G issued a press release indicating no salmonella-related illnesses have not been reported, we are monitoring this issue and invite you to contact us if your dog or cat has consumed the product and experienced any symptoms. We are also interested in hearing whether refunds are being honoured.</p>
<p>For a list of the products recalled, please go to <a href="http://www.eukanuba.com/en-US/product-recall.html">http://www.eukanuba.com/en-US/product-recall.html</a></p>
<p>Ward Branch and Luciana Brasil of Branch MacMaster were counsel for the class in connection with the settlement of the claims arising from the Menu Foods recall in March 2007.</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Court Approves Partial Settlement in Chocolate Conspiracy Claim</title><id>http://www.branchmacmaster.com/news-and-press/2010/7/27/court-approves-partial-settlement-in-chocolate-conspiracy-cl.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.branchmacmaster.com/news-and-press/2010/7/27/court-approves-partial-settlement-in-chocolate-conspiracy-cl.html"/><author><name>Branch MacMaster</name></author><published>2010-07-27T23:20:31Z</published><updated>2010-07-27T23:20:31Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-CA"><![CDATA[<p>The Courts in Briitish Columbia and Ontario approved a partial settlement made as between the Plaintiff, Cadbury and ITWAL in a price fixing and price maintenance conspiracy claim. The other defendants, Hershey, Nestle and Mars, have appealed the decisions.</p>
<p>The settlement, if approved, provides for a payment in excess of $5 million, and substantial cooperation in the prosecution of the remaining claims against Hershey, Nestle and Mars.</p>
<p>Ward Branch and Luciana Brasil of Branch MacMaster LLP are counsel for the BC&nbsp;class, together with J.J. Camp Q.C. and Reidar Mogerman, of Camp Fiorante Matthews,&nbsp;and part of a&nbsp;national team assembled to prosecute the claims.</p>
<p>&nbsp;<a href="http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/06/11/bc-chocolate-conspiracy-allegation-settlement.html">http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/06/11/bc-chocolate-conspiracy-allegation-settlement.html</a></p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Primary / Excess Contest Between Insurers</title><id>http://www.branchmacmaster.com/news-and-press/2010/6/11/primary-excess-contest-between-insurers.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.branchmacmaster.com/news-and-press/2010/6/11/primary-excess-contest-between-insurers.html"/><author><name>Branch MacMaster</name></author><published>2010-06-11T15:39:17Z</published><updated>2010-06-11T15:39:17Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-CA"><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.branchmacmaster.com/james-macmaster" target="_blank">Jim MacMaster</a> and <a href="http://www.branchmacmaster.com/paul-miller" target="_blank">Paul Miller</a>&nbsp;succeeded in positioning Branch MacMaster's insurance client as an excess carrier in an action arising out of the collapse of a church floor during a concert. See the &nbsp;B.C. Supreme Court website for the decision in <a href="http://bit.ly/b9hmuZ" target="_blank">Williams v. The B.C. Conference of the Mennonite Brethren Churches, 2010 BCSC 791</a>.</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Supreme Court Holds that Bidding on Trademarks for Keyword Advertising is not Misleading</title><category term="google ad words"/><category term="keyword advertising"/><id>http://www.branchmacmaster.com/news-and-press/2010/5/28/supreme-court-holds-that-bidding-on-trademarks-for-keyword-a.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.branchmacmaster.com/news-and-press/2010/5/28/supreme-court-holds-that-bidding-on-trademarks-for-keyword-a.html"/><author><name>Branch MacMaster</name></author><published>2010-05-29T03:38:55Z</published><updated>2010-05-29T03:38:55Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-CA"><![CDATA[<h2>Update:&nbsp;</h2>
<p>Professor Geist recently commented on this decision <a href="http://www.thestar.com/news/sciencetech/technology/lawbytes/article/819889--geist-judge-rules-google-s-keywords-belong-to-top-bidders" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
<p>In P<em>rivate Career Training Institutions Agency v. Vancouver Career College (Burnaby) Inc.</em>, the Supreme Court of British Columbia held that bidding on a competitor's trade name in connection with keyword advertising is not misleading, and refused to order an injunction to restrain such practice. This was the first decision in Canada on an issue that is receiving increasing attention in the U.S. &nbsp;Luciana Brasil and Ward Branch were counsel for the successful Respondent, Vancouver Career College (Burnaby) Inc.</p>]]></content></entry></feed>
