and/or supply of [LIBs] in North America and elsewhere”. The
conspiracy is said to have moderated the downward pressure on
the prices of LIBs and LIB products.
 The allegations include, but are not limited to, the following
factual assertions about the defendants’ behaviour:
— they had illicit meetings beginning in 2000;
— they agreed upon floor pricing;
— they conspired to allocate volumes of sales and reduce
production, manufacture and supply;
— they used “code words” to communicate pricing;
— they agreed not to forward “sensitive e-mails”;
— they had discussions about avoiding trails of correspondence
and erasing correspondence; and
— they submitted collusive, non-competitive and rigged bids.
 The pleadings specifically allege that the co-conspirators
“were aware of and intended” that the alleged conspiracy would
“result in increased prices for [LIBs] and [LIB products]”.
Further, the pleadings suggest that the co-conspirators’ “
unlawful acts” were directed at the “proposed class”, and that the
defendants knew that those acts “were likely to cause injury to
the Plaintiffs and other members of the proposed class”.
 The defendants are said to have controlled the majority of
the LIB market in Canada during the conspiracy period. For
instance, in 2008, the defendants controlled about 70 per cent of
the international LIB market. By 2011, they controlled about 75
per cent of that same market. Their market share was even higher
in Canada. The appellants maintain that because the alleged cartel
held so much of the market share, the increase in the cartel’s
prices caused non-conspirators to also raise their prices. This is
referred to as an “umbrella” effect, about which we will have more
to say shortly.
(2) Umbrella purchaser claims in Canada
 Liability to umbrella purchasers is a contested issue as
demonstrated by the back and forth between courts in Ontario
and British Columbia.
 Following the certification judge’s decision in this case, the
umbrella purchaser issue came before the British Columbia Supreme Court in Godfrey v. Sony Corp.,  B.C.J. No. 979, 2016
BCSC 844 (“Godfrey BCSC”), where that court rejected the