Rogers Says Competition Bureau Has ‘Obligation’ to Fast-Track Shaw Merger Hearing

Rogers on Thursday filed an official objection to the Competition Bureau’s request to delay a tribunal hearing into the company’s planned $26 billion CAD acquisition of Shaw Communications — reports Reuters.

Back in May, the Competition Bureau petitioned the federal competition tribunal to block the Rogers-Shaw deal over concerns it would decrease competition in Canada’s already oligopolistic telecom market.

In turn, the two companies decided to sell Shaw-owned Freedom Mobile to Quebecor for $2.85 billion in hopes of allaying fears that their union would harm wireless competition and increase prices.

The Bureau said last month that the Freedom sale does not address all of its doubts regarding the merger, adding it does not have enough information to give it the green light. Canada’s competition watchdog asked for at least a six-week extension in merger proceedings to investigate the proposed Freedom Mobile sale.

Rogers opposed the request at the time, and the company expanded on its arguments in Thursday’s objection.

In its recent filing with the competition tribunal, Rogers said Competition Commissioner Matthew Boswell has a “statutory obligation” to expedite the merger proceedings. Rogers added that there are no compelling reasons to change the dates that the parties have already agreed to.

Last week, Rogers and Shaw extended the deadline of their deal to December 31, 2022. The tribunal is set to hear arguments from both sides on the timeline extension this week.

Want to see more of our stories on Google?

Add iPhone in Canada as a Preferred Source on Google

P.S. Want to keep this site truly independent? Support us by buying us a beer, treating us to a coffee, or shopping through Amazon here. Links in this post are affiliate links, so we earn a tiny commission at no charge to you. Thanks for supporting independent Canadian media!

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
3 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
CuJo YYC
CuJo YYC
3 years ago

“statutory obligation”
No. No they do not have any such obligation. Saying so doesn’t make it so.

Andy
Andy
Reply to  CuJo YYC
3 years ago

Their mistake was not declaring it first. Loudly. “ROGERS, DECLARES, OBLIGATION”

raslucas
raslucas
3 years ago

Ok… But to be fair… if the purpose is preserving competition… Freedom is best served by getting out of merger purgatory as soon as possible.

3
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x