China Law Vision : China Insurance & Anti-Trust Lawyer : Dr. Zhan Hao : Grandall Legal Group : Anti-Monopoly & Competition Law : China Law Vision Blog

On 7^th December 2011, Nestlé’s intended purchasing 60% shares of Hsu Fu Chi by Rmb1.51bn ($234m) was cleared by MOFCOM officially. By this news, all clouds of doubt and debates from a variety of societies in last months are dispelled. In particular, Nestlé/Hsu Fu Chi decision from MOFCOM cleans up the school of worries from foreign enterprises that antitrust enforcement of PRC is inclined to protect national brand, as they derived from Coca-Cola/ Huiyuan case. It is believed that MOFCOM’s clearance in Nestlé/Hsu Fu chi must have an encouraging effect on foreign enterprises’ incentive to march into Chinese market by the means of concentration.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Price Supervision, Inspection and Antitrust Bureau of NRDC has confirmed to the public on 2^nd December 2011, that they have received applications from China Unicom and China Telecom for the suspension of probe on alleged abuse of dominant position by the parties in last month. In addition, China Telecom also submitted a proposal of rectifying and reforming to NRDC, with the expectation to be awarded a leniency treatment. The proposal of rectifying and reforming is comprised of mainly the following aspects:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On 29^th November 2011, an official meeting was held between Chinese delegations led by MOFCOM’s vice minister Gao Hucheng and delegations of US antitrust agencies, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ). It is the first official high-level talk between public enforcement agencies of China and US, since DOJ and FTC signed an antitrust memorandum of understanding (MOU) with China's three antimonopoly agencies in July 2011, therefore, afforded with profound significance in terms of enhancing bilateral communication and cooperation among them.

By taking this opportunity, both sides reaffirmed and emphasized the cooperation concurred in the MOU this July, including significant issues of cooperation on investigations of two sides, confidentiality obligations, exchange of information and so on.

Consensus was reached between both sides that this meeting was of help to deepen the mutual understanding of antitrust agencies of two countries, with respect to competition policies and antitrust enforcement, to share experience and promote a further-step cooperation between the two biggest economic territories.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On October 31 2011 the Ministry of Commerce posted Notice 73 in its website, announcing the clearance of a proposed concentration between Penelope Co Ltd and Savio Macchine Tessili SpA on certain conditions. The ministry's reasoning and analysis shed light on its approach to the review of concentrations on anti-monopoly grounds.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On October 10 2011 one of China's largest retail websites, Taobao Mall - known as Tmall - announced a new set of rules, which included the imposition of a high annual technical service fee and an increased security deposit for its vendors. Tmall stated that the new rules were intended to ensure the provision of high-quality goods and services and to discourage counterfeiting and price wars.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A spokeswoman from the Ministry of Commerce publicly declared in the recent, that the Ministry has officially accepted the notification on Nestlé’s acquisition of Hsu Fu Chi. If the Ministry turns on the green light for this filing it could be one of the biggest foreign takeovers of a Chinese undertaking historically.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On September 7^th, 2011, an antitrust litigation against Taiyuan Railway Bureau was brought to Taiyuan Xinghualing Court on the ground that Taiyuan Railway Bureau violated Anti-monopoly Law and Unfair Competition Law of PRC by its administrative omission.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

With already more than 3 years of practice experience concerning antitrust review to concentrations, the Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China in recent publicly announced its first set of guideline thereof on August 29, 2011, namely, “Provisional Regulation on the Assessment on the Competitive Effects of Concentration of Undertakings ( it would be abbreviated as “the Regulation” hereinafter)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On July 27 2011 China's three anti-monopoly agencies - the Ministry of Commerce, the National Development and Reform Commission and the State Administration for Industry and Commerce - signed an antitrust and anti-monopoly memorandum of understanding with the US Federal Trade Commission and the US Department of Justice in Beijing, with the aim of promoting international communication and cooperation between the agencies.

Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz stated:

"From the first suggestion to this final signed [memorandum of understanding], both countries has been preparing for two years. During the preparation period, we have established a mutual and steady trust relationship, and made the encouraging goal on market competition."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 Nestlé has announced that it plans to commit around $1.7 billion to the acquisition of a 60% share in confectionery manufacturer Hsu Fu Chi. The turnovers of the undertakings involved in the transaction are above the threshold for concentration filing and the deal is subject to anti-monopoly review.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

When a merger, acquisition or joint venture is connected to the Chinese market and is treated as a concentration under China's Anti-monopoly Law, a company's first question to its lawyer is likely to be whether the transaction must be filed with the Ministry of Commerce.

The reason for the problem is clear. The law and relevant regulations state that a concentration which meets the filing threshold must be filed. However, the low threshold for filing a concentration in China means that the understaffed ministry has a large number of filings to review. As a result, filing is a time-consuming process. Chinese competition lawyers will also be aware that there are no specific provisions of law that penalise failure to file. Some undertakings weigh the risk of being caught against the potential time saving and choose to not to file, instead discreetly proceeding with the transaction. This practice has become an open secret in China.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Since the Anti-monopoly Law was passed, around 50 private anti-monopoly litigations have been brought and the courts' jurisdiction over such cases has become a key issue.

Under the internal organisation of the Supreme Court, No 3 Civil Division is in charge of hearing anti-monopoly cases and directing anti-monopoly litigations at local level. This responsibility is no surprise. Previously, No 3 Civil Division focused on IP cases. Ostensibly, competition issues have an indispensable connection with IP rights; thus, on promulgation of the Anti-unfair Competition Law, No 3 Civil Division became responsible for anti-unfair competition cases. No 3 Civil Division has now become the full-time anti-monopoly court within the Supreme Court.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On April 25^th, the Supreme Court issued Provisions On a Number of Issues Applicable to the Trial of Monopoly Civil Dispute Cases (the “Exposure Draft”) for public comments.
　　　　

Totalling 20 articles, this Exposure Draft are based on the Anti-Monopoly Law (“AML”), the Civil Law, the Civil Procedure, the Contract Law, the Torts and other related laws. Primarily, the basic construction and detailed rules of the anti-monopoly civil procedure are summarised in the 4 parts below：

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Introduction

The Unfair Competition Law, which was enacted in 1993, has been described as the constitution of the market economy. However, China's rapid social and economic development has given rise to new forms of unfair competition that the legislature did not foresee. The law is now in the final stages of amendment; the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) has completed a revised draft and has submitted it to the Legislative Affairs Office of the State Council.

Information released by the SAIC suggests that the changes focus on:

• identifying the competent enforcement agency to ensure uniform enforcement standards; and
• idefining new forms of unfair competition to extend the scope of administrative enforcement.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

China's biggest encyclopaedia website, Hudong.com, has requested an anti-monopoly review of Baidu, the leading Chinese internet search engine. Hudong.com is asking the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) to fine Baidu a total of Rmb79 million.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Recently, General Office of the State Council issued the Notice of Launching the Security Review System for Acquisitions of Domestic Enterprises by Foreign Investors (“the Notice”). The Notice will come into effect on March 5, 2011.

Security review system for acquisition of domestic enterprises by foreign investors (hereinafter referred to as "Security review") is neither created by China, nor meaning to deter foreign investment.  A lot of developed countries have set up M&A Security review for many years to protect their own national security related interests.  China already started Security review a few years ago, but it hasn’t yet released the formal regulations until now. The Security review system covers two sectors:

i) foreign investors' acquisition of military industrial enterprises or military industry related supporting enterprises, enterprises located near key and sensitive military facilities, and other entities relating to national defense;

ii)foreign investors' acquisition of key domestic enterprises in areas such as agriculture, energy and resources, infrastructure, transport, technology, assembly manufacturing, etc., whereby the foreign investors might acquire the actual controlling right thereof.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On November 29 2010 the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) promulgated one substantive regulation and one procedural regulation regarding pricerelated monopolies (for further details please see "NDRC issues new anti-monopoly pricing regulations"). To accompany these regulations, the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) issued the Regulation on Prohibiting Monopoly Agreements, the Regulation on Prohibiting Abuse of Market Dominance and the Regulation on Prohibiting Abuse of Executive Authority to Exclude and Limit Competition on December 1 2010.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The end of 2010 leaves China's anti-monopoly regulators with several matters to consider, resolve or improve. The anti-monopoly framework is still not well established and consumer rights issues have been badly neglected. End consumers remain at risk of manipulation by collusion between large enterprises, especially on price. Recently, an instant noodle company stopped providing its products because a supermarket chain objected to a price increase and a mobile telecommunications company, facing claims of unreasonable tariffs, refused to reveal the basis of its pricing structure.

The National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) is in charge of price related monopoly agreements (ie, cartels), abuse of dominance and administrative monopoly issues. In comparison with the other two regulatory bodies - the Ministry of Commerce and the State Administration of Industry and Commerce (SAIC) - it remains severely understaffed. Moreover, price regulation is invariably a sensitive issue in China and often attracts criticism. The SAIC issued regulations on non-pricing-related monopoly agreements, abuse of dominance and administrative monopoly in May 2010 (for further details please see "New draft rules on monopoly agreements and abuse of dominant position"), but the NDRC has been slow to follow suit. As the world economy has started to emerge from the financial crisis, many Chinese and foreign economists have criticised distorted market prices and price mismatching in China, making the NDRC even more wary of taking action on anti-monopoly pricing issues.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Baixiang Food Group and other instant noodle manufacturers have brought a complaint against their competitor Kangshifu, claiming that it unfairly dominates the instant noodle market in China. Kangshifu has also been accused of engaging in price dumping through its subsidiary brand Fumanduo. Kangshifu contests both assertions.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Introduction

The Ministry of Commerce's Anti-monopoly Bureau approved Novartis's acquisition of Alcon on August 13 2010, subject to conditions.(1) The ministry accepted the filing in respect of the acquisition on April 20 2010 and decided on May 17 2010 that a further review period was needed. The ministry reviewed information on:

• the overlap of the two companies' products in the Chinese and global markets;
• their respective market shares;
• the characteristics, applications, prices and sales methods of their products;
• the supervisory policies in the relevant market; and
• the two companies' relationships with competitors in the market.

Opinions were sought from other companies in the field. After negotiating with the filing parties, consensus was reached on how to reduce the acquisition's undesirable effects on competition in the relevant markets.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On August 12th 2010, the Ministry of Commerce held a press conference regarding the development of the antimonopoly practice in China.  The Chief of the Antimonopoly Bureau, Mr. Shang Ming, answered questions raised by the journalists.  For the first time in 2 years since the China Anti-Monopoly Law (“AML”) came into effect that some of the most controversial questions were clarified directly by the official from the enforcement institution.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On July 8^th, MOFCOM (Ministry of Commerce of People’s Republic of China) released The Provisional Rules on Implementing Divestiture of Assets or Businesses(“Provisional Rules”). This legislative move can be seen as China’s aggressive while at the same time, practical effort in the perfection of Chinese concentration review regime within the framework of Chinese Anti-monopoly Law (“AML”).

So far, China has only slightly less than two years of antitrust enforcement. Yet some antitrust professionals have already been amazed by how China has quickly become the world’s third most important merger control jurisdictions, and its influence is still ascending. MOFCOM, SAIC and NDRC, China’s three AML enforcement authorities, have issued nearly 20 regulations, guidelines, notices and provisions to implement AML in the areas of concentration, cartels, abusing dominance and administrative monopoly.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On May 27, State Administration of Industry and Commerce (“SAIC”) published new draft regulations on monopoly agreements, abuse of dominant position and administrative monopoly for public comments. These sets of unveiled draft rules are resulted from pubic opinions and comments which SAIC has collected since June 2010, this is when SAIC first published the draft regulations. Within China’s antitrust law enforcement system, SAIC has the mandate to condemn non-price-related monopoly agreements, non-price-related abuse of dominant position and administrative monopoly. Furthermore, it has mandate to fashion implementing rules for the Anti-Monopoly Law of PRC (“AML”) too.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Leniency program is an effective tool in exposing cartels. This has been confirmed by over 20 antitrust jurisdictions having leniency program around the world. China joined the club on August 1, 2008, when the Anti-Monopoly Law of PRC (“AML”) came into effect. For the first time, AML expressly recognized leniency program in its intention to condemn monopoly agreements. However, AML only makes a passing reference to the policy in which “undertakings who voluntarily report to antitrust enforcement authorities on monopoly agreements and advance key evidence MAY be reduced or exempted from penalties”. Thus, it takes China’s trust busters to fashion rules to implement leniency policy.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This is an article corresponding to the China Mobile case which was discussed at China Law Vision on April 21, 2009. On 23 October 2009 the Beijing Dongcheng District People's Court announced the settlement of an Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) case brought by Zhou Ze, an activist lawyer in Beijing, against China Mobile, China's largest mobile network operator.

Zhou alleged that China Mobile abused its dominant market position (DMP) and engaged in illegal price discrimination activities by charging additional monthly fees for services that he, as a subscriber, was not using. Zhou sought 1,200 yuan in compensation (an amount equal to his basic mobile fees for the last two years), and for China Mobile to stop charging its subscribers such fees. Consequentially,the state-owned giant agreed to pay Mr. Zhou 1,000 yuan ($146) to settle his claims over mandatory fees.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

1.  According to China Anti-Monopoly Law, we need the following information in order to evaluate whether a deal reaches the threshold of concentration filing in China:

a. The worldwide turnovers of the two parties.

To evaluate whether a certain concentration triggers anti-monopoly review, China’s authority looks at all turnover figures of all concentrating parties, regardless of spheres of business those turnovers are derived from. The only exception is that where the concentration involves asset acquisition, the turnover calculation for the seller refers to the turnover specific to the concentration.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The absence of specific rules on national security investigation on foreign investment in China has been labeled as one of the imperfections of the Anti-Monopoly Law of PRC (“AML”). Article 31 of AML only makes a passing reference to the necessity of conducting national security review when foreign capitals engage in acquisitions or other forms of concentrations that implicate China’s national security. Critics point to the general provision as inoperable in curtailing the massive inflow of foreign acquisitions into strategically important industries in China. To the author’s knowledge, no such investigation has been performed in China, since AML became effective on August 1, 2008.

It may be changed soon. Media reports say that a so called “National Security Investigation Mechanism” (国家安全审查机制) is probably going to be unveiled at the end of this year. At that time, an inter-agency committee charged with the investigation will be established. According to the reports, the committee shall have members from a galaxy of government bodies that represent broad and varied state interest, i.e.,  National Development and Reform Commission, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, Ministry of Commerce, Commission of Science, Technology and Industry of National Defense, Ministry of Agriculture, State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council, China Banking Regulatory Commission, State Administration for Industry & Commerce, State Administration of Taxation and several trade associations in key sectors of economy. It is reported that the draft bill on the national security policy was submitted to the State Council in March. The prelude to the unveiling came when Premier Wen Jiabao made the work report to the 3^rd Session of the 11^th National People’s Congress on March 5, when he is quoted to say that “in encouraging foreign capitals to participate in the restructuring and M&A of domestic enterprises, China shall accelerate the establishment of national security investigation regime. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In early March, 2010，Diageo, the world’s leading spirits maker signed a deal whereby it acquires majority shares of SiChuan Quanxing Group, a holding company that owns Shui Jing Fang(水井坊), reputedly China’s oldest white wine. What is remarkable about the transaction is that it is the first case in which foreign capital takes over Chinese white wine. To further make the deal unique is how surreally the white whine came into being. In 1998, Quanxing Group discovered a relic site when its workers were in the process of renovating factories. Archeological excavation showed that the site was originally a wine making workshop that dates back to Yuan Dynasty, over 600 years ago. With state-of-art bio technology, several active microbes were obtained from the workshop and used to produce the white whine, branded Shui Jing Fang(水井坊). The relic site was also listed by Guinness World Records as the world’s oldest wine making workshop.

On a rough look, the Diageo/Shui Jing Fang deal is remarkably similar to the Coca-Cola bid for Hui Yuan . For example, both involve world famous brands buying Chinese famous local brands, in effort to tap into the ever increasing beverage market in China. Given the doomed Coca Cola/Hui Yuan transaction on antitrust account, one is tempted to ask whether history will not repeat itself this time. Meanwhile, media report says Diageo is preparing regulatory filing with MOFCOM, which is the authority charged with policing merger market to prevent anticompetitive consequences. There are also market speculations on the fate of the deal in the hand of MOFCOM.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On November 26, 2009, China’s Banking Regulatory Commission (CBRC) issued the Pilot Administrative Measures for Commercial Banks to Make Equity Investment in Insurance Companies (the “Measures”). The Measures cover several key aspects of commercial banks’ equity investment in insurance companies, i.e., market access, risk control and regulatory supervision. Its enactment marks the official recognition of cross-sector operations within the banking and insurance industries. By and large, the Measures establishes the regulatory framework for enhanced partnership between the banking and insurance industry. Interestingly though, it has streaks of competition law in its provisions, which has the effect of fostering healthier competition in the future financial market of integrated operation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I focus mainly on two legal areas: insurance law and anti-monopoly law. Both these two areas experienced a dramatic progress in 2009. In my personal practice, I see some interesting overlapping of these two areas. In this article, I will address two cases in vehicle insurance market regarding the accusation of violation of China Anti-Monopoly Law (AML).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On 25 January 2010, European Commission said that it is ready to review a plan by the world’s second and third largest iron ore miners, Rio Tinto and BHP Biliton, to combine some iron ore mining operations in Australia. The European antitrust watchdog said that it would investigate whether the companies’ plan to pool iron ore mining in western Australia would affect the global prices or supply for iron ore transported by sea, known as seaborne iron ore. The Commission set no deadline for completion of the investigation, citing the complexity of the case, cooperation from the companies involved and exercise of the rights of defense, among other factors, to justify the open-ended time limit.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On January 8^th, the China Publishers Association（中国出版工作者协会），the China Book Distribution Industry Association（中国书刊发行业协会）and the China Xinhua Bookstore Association（中国新华书店协会）(collectively the “Three Associations”) jointly published the “Book Fair Trade Rules” (“BFTR”). Its enactment generated widespread outcry at its suspected violation of China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (“AML”). BFTR became effective upon its release.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 This article appeared in the 3rd edition of The International Comparative Legal Guide to Cartels and Leniency 2010; published by Global Legal Group Ltd, London(www.iclg.co.uk)

You can aslo download a bookmarked PDF version of this guide book at the following link:

http://www.iclg.co.uk/index.php?area=4&show_chapter=3380&ifocus=1&kh_publications_id=128

 1     The Legislative Framework of the Cartel Prohibition

1.1 What is the legal basis and general nature of the cartel prohibition, e.g. is it civil and/or criminal?

The principal legal basis for cartel prohibition is the Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) and the Price Law (Price Law). At the time of writing, two of China’s antitrust enforcement authorities—the State Administration for Industry & Commerce ( SAIC) and the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC)—have also promulgated a series of implementing regulations for public comments: the Draft of the Regulations on Prohibiting Monopoly Agreements (SAIC) and the Draft of the Regulations on Prohibiting Price Monopoly (NDRC).

In China, violation of cartel prohibition carries administrative as well as civil liabilities. No criminal liability is provided for cartels in China.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On December 18, 2009, Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court (the “Court”) reached a decision in favor of defendant in China’s second “abusing dominant market position” case.

BACKGROUND

The Plaintiff, Tangshan Renren Information Service Company (“TRISC”) operates an online platform that brokers deals between pharmaceutical companies and distributors and consumers. The Defendant, Baidu, which is allegedly the largest Chinese search engine company is accused of artificially lowering TRISC’s ranking in Baidu search results in order to coerce TRISC into continuing to purchase bid ranking service from Baidu. It is alleged to have caused TRISC to lose traffic and revenue. TRISC brought the case to the Court under Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of Chinese Anti-Monopoly Law (“AML”), namely, the exclusive dealing provision that prohibits a firm with market dominance position from restricting a third party to dealing with itself or selected third parties exclusively without valid justification. TRISC petitioned the Court to grant an order to enjoin Baido from the conduct and asked for $163,000 in damage for lost revenues. Baidu defended itself by arguing that lowering TRISC’s ranking in its search result was a response to the “junk links” practice TRISC engaged in, i.e. TRISC created a robot to automatically post junk posts on websites and forums and sent out spam messages to elevate its ranking in Baidu’s search results. According to Baidu, it adopts “anti-junk links” policy and made it sufficiently clear to the outside world by putting it on its website.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week, Rio Tinto, a resource giant of Australia, withdrew its proposed transaction with China’s Chinalco, and announced that it will set up a joint venture with another rival miner, BHP Billiton. If the Rio Tinto - BHP Billiton deal is finished, as analysts estimated, there will be a great concert effect, because they will be able to share their ports and railroads in Western Australia, which considerably cuts costs for both parties.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On June 05，2009，the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC), one of the three enforcement agencies for China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (AML), released two sets of provisions on the procedures to be followed by the agency and its delegates when enforcing the AML. They are: Procedural Provisions on Stopping the Use of Administrative Power to Exclude or Restrict Competition and Procedural Provisions for Investigating Monopoly Agreement and Abuse of Dominant Position Matters. These two provisions will come into effect on July 01, 2009. On June 08, 2009, SAIC published a Set of Questions and Answers about the Two Procedural Provisions on its website, which provides answers and explanations to some of the more pressing issues.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last month, nearly all domestic airline companies in China raise their price simultaneously. However, they denied that their decision based upon agreement between them. On 04.27.2009, SAIC promulgated the Draft Regulation on Prohibition of Monopoly Agreements and the Draft Regulation on Prohibition of Abuse of Dominance. The two drafted regulations offer detailed instruction and important amendments on how to regulate monopoly agreements and abuse of dominance.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Currently, there is an absence of legislation in China concerning gun jumping in the context of mergers and acquisitions. However, the Anti-monopoly Law (AML) could potentially be utilized as mode to curb and or prohibit gun jumping in the future. The following will attempt to analyze how the AML may be used in relation to gun jumping in the future.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week, SAIC promulgated two draft regulations relating to China’s Anti-monopoly Law. The new regulations concern abuse of dominance and monopoly agreements.

A prohibition on anti-competitive monopoly agreements and a prohibition against the abuse of market dominance are two of AML’s main prongs; the third being a review of concentration. However, under the AML, the provisions of these two categories lack detail as they are only covered through the broad principles of China’s competition law. Hence, the new draft regulations are welcomed as a mode to increase the detail of and to further develop China’s competition law. Furthermore, substantial private litigation has emerged challenging the abuse of dominance and monopoly agreements. Therefore, SAIC’s promulgation of the two drafts is a welcomed response to this rising trend.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Another hotspot related to this case is national security issue.

The opponents argued that this concentration will threat the national security of our country. Huiyuan is a well-known domestic brand in Chinese juice beverage market. According to a survey made by AC Nielson, pre-concentration, Huiyuan’s market share in pure juice beverage market and middle-level concentration juice beverage market reached 42.10% and 43.60% respectively. If Huiyuan was acquired by Coca-cola, a foreign giant in soft drink market, this domestic brand will suffer the same fate as those who have been acquired by foreign corporations: disappear in the market. At that time, Chinese juice beverage market will be monopolized by foreign enterprise. It will be a huge threat to China’s economic and food security.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

First, it is no doubt that this case has become a landmark case in the developing history of China anti-monopoly law. There are four points I should address under my first topic as to why this case is so significant to China AML.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week, the so-called first case of abuse of dominant market position (DMP) was heard by the Beijing First Middle-level court. This time, the famous Chinese search-engine Baidu was brought under the sword of China’s Anti-monopoly law (AML).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The first issue faced by SAIC (State Administration for Industry and Trade) is retaining an appropriate degree of manpower. According to the permission from State Council, SAIC has established a specific bureau to cope with monopoly behavior, though its manpower is far from adequate to deal with nationwide AML cases. Based on the provisions of the AML, SAIC may empower its subsidiaries at the provincial level in order to help resolve specific cases. This means SAIC can take advantage of nationwide resources under the present system. However, the question of how to prevent localism and how to guarantee strict compliance with the AML presents a challenging answer.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On March 4th 2009, attorney Zhou Ze filed a claim in Beijing Dongcheng District Court. He accused China Mobile and Beijing Mobile of abusing their dominant market position (DMP) and price discrimination. The court has accepted the case and the hearing will be in the near future. For China mobile, the largest domestic mobile phone operator and the world's largest operator by subscribers, it is the first time an Anti-monopoly suit has been brought against the company.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

When referring to the anti-monopoly authority in China, many first mention the Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (MOFCOM). However, based on the provisions of the Anti-monopoly Law of the PRC (AML) and the power allocated by the State Council, the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) will play a primary role in AML enforcement.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The following is an excerpt from a recent interview on China's Anti-monopoly law conducted with Dr. Zhan Hao. The interview below briefly analyzes some of his comments and questions concerning China's stride towards a form of competition law.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Since the Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) promulgated its decision to block the acquisition of Huiyuan Juice Group by The Coca-Cola Company, the decision has been subject to tremendous criticism from trade lawyers and economists. Some have argued China appears willing to wield its Anti-monopoly Law to fend off foreign attempts at buying promising domestic firms (though Huiyuan was incorporated in the Cayman Islands), even when the resulting market concentration would not be excessive.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On January 7 2009 the Ministry of Commerce (Mofcom), in hope of receiving comments, published draft guidelines for the demarcation of the relevant market.

Lack of detailed guidelines for the demarcation of the relevant market is a primary criticism of the PRC Anti-monopoly Law (AML) and its enforcement. Relating to the definition of the relevant market, there has been a tremendous difference in opinion amongst Chinese experts, including legal consultants and economists. The gap between such opinions is far too wide for consolidation. Thus, the State Council has intentionally ignored the demarcation of the relevant market in regulations following the AML concerning notification of concentrations.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On August 1, the Chinese Anti-monopoly Law (AML) was enforceable and four plaintiffs filed an anti-monopoly case in the No1 Intermediate People's Court of Beijing. Some members of the media and laymen cheered it as the first anti-monopoly private litigation in China.

The plaintiffs were four anti-counterfeiting companies who sued the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ), an industry regulator. The original four plaintiffs were later joined by four other anti-counterfeiting Chinese companies from across the country . Claiming AQSIQ violated the AML, due to its efforts to popularize an online network.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It is my pleasure to find some colleagues interested in Chinese AML issues. I would like to discuss with you the functions of the regulatory institutions and the possible issues surrounding investigation and litigation.

Presently, the profile of MOFCOM (Ministry of Commerce) is clear, however that of NDRC (National Development and Reform Commission) and SAIC (State Administration for Industry and Commerce) have not come into being.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

From the beginning of 2009, the year of the ox, the legislative framework of the Chinese Anti-monopoly Law (AML) has been accelerated. The acceleration is necessary to correct some of the major disadvantages of the AML. It is hoped the corrections will prevent the AML from being seen as abstract and hard to enforce.

Until now, we have heard little from regulatory organizations related to the enforcement of Chinese Anti-monopoly law including the; Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM); State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) and the National Reform and Development Commission (SDPC). However, there appears to be a consensus amongst the organizations for a need to focus on the legislation progress, and to promulgate Guiding Opinions, Guidelines, Working Guidelines and Regulation and Administrative Procedures in an expedited fashion. Among these three organizations, it seems MOFCOM is moving far quicker than the others.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today afternoon, just twenty minutes ago, Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) promulgated its decision regarding the concentration between The Coca-Cola Company and China Huiyuan Juice Group Limited, which prohibited this acquisition. This prohibition decision is the first prohibition decision issued by MOFCOM since the enforcement of Chinese Anti-monopoly Law (AML).
On September 3, 2008, The Coca-Cola Company announced its intention to make cash offers to purchase China Huiyuan Juice Group Limited; a Hong Kong listed company which owns the Huiyuan juice business throughout China.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

At the beginning of November, Mr. Xi Xiaoming, the Vice Chief Justice of the Chinese Supreme Court, informed the media at a press conference that the Chinese Supreme Court would initiate the drafting of judicial explanations to compliment the Chinese Anti-monopoly Law (AML). Before such formal expression, another Justice in the No.3 Civil Division of the Chinese Supreme Court publicly stated plaintiffs may file civil AML cases directly, bypassing the wait for administrative decisions.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

China’s Anti-monopoly Law was promulgated on August 30^th 2008.  Although the legislation is constantly developing, experts have forecasted an urgent need for those willing to act as Chinese Anti-monopoly lawyers.  The need for Chinese Anti-monopoly lawyers stems from the intense concerns expressed by multi-national corporations.  These corporations fear harsh penalties, restrictions on business practices and complex regulatory burdens under the new regime.  Considering these fears, sound advice provided by a Chinese Anti-monopoly lawyer is of the utmost importance.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Since October 2008, Private oil companies in China have been urging one another to take advantage of the Anti-Monopoly Law（AML） to secure a stable supply of oil and avoid over-reliance on the country's two major oil producers for survival. They want new policies to create a level playing field. Currently they depend on the oil supplies of the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) and the China Petroleum and Chemicals Corporation (Sinopec) as they are forbidden by law to extract or import their own.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

During the drafting of the Chinese Anti-monopoly Law (AML), the level at which the threshold of concentration notification was to be set, aroused fierce debate. In the end however, AML did not specifically stipulate the notification criteria in detail.Article 21 of AML states:

Business operators shall declare in advance the concentration reaching the threshold of declaration prescribed by the State Council to the Anti-monopoly Law Enforcement Agency, otherwise, they shall not implement the concentration.

Such a vaguely worded clause has caused confusion within the legal profession. It certainly begs the question: Why did AML not explicitly stipulate the threshold of notification? Examining both the lawmaking process prior to the creation of AML as well as the drafting of AML itself may prove to be helpful. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

November 2008, Mr. Xi Xiaoming, Vice Chief Justice of the Chinese Supreme Court, informed the media the Chinese Supreme Court would initiate drafting of judicial explanations complimenting the Chinese Anti-monopoly Law (AML). Before such formal expression, another Justice in the No.3 Civil Division of the Chinese Supreme Court publicly stated plaintiffs may file civil AML cases directly, bypassing the wait for administrative decisions.

Due to the characteristic of the AML, the administrative departments, other than courts, are the leading force in law enforcement. Presently, there is uncertainty in the AML administrative procedure and administrative departments take caution in announcements and practices. In such an atmosphere, Chinese courts come to the front.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It is difficult to overstate the importance of concentration control regulations in the broader context of Chinese Anti-trust law as regulated by the Anti-monopoly Law of the People's Republic of China (Anti-monopoly). No area of anti-monopoly enforcement commands closer scrutiny or arouses more impassioned debate. In fact, creating a proper definition for concentration was the most vigorously contested issue during the drafting of the new Anti-monopoly Law.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link