China’s Anti-monopoly Law was promulgated on August 30th 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.


The potential prospects for Chinese Anti-monopoly lawyers are becoming ever vivid in China’s new market economy.  Recently, Coca-Cola has announced a $2.4bn acquisition of China’s Huiyuan Juice Group and in December of 2008 a group of lawyers launched a complaint against Baidu’s web policy. Western media has reported the complaint against Baidu will wrap the company in an unforeseen tangle of legal challenges and Coca-Cola has yet to receive regulatory acceptance or rejection of the Huiyuan acquisition.


The issues above should sound alarm bells amongst legal professionals spurring the onset of a wave of up and coming Chinese Anti-monopoly lawyers.  This is especially true considering the size and scope of Coca-Cola’s proposed takeover.  However, this has not been the case and on the Mainland there remains to be an urgent need for Chinese Anti-monopoly law lawyers.


Further argument supporting the request to increase the number of Chinese Anti-monopoly lawyers is found within Microsoft’s presence in China.  As Microsoft has faced large regulatory hurdles in the European Union, it is ripe to suggest potential problems could arise in China.  Such problems could include the inclusion of internet browsers and media players within the Windows operating system.  Should Microsoft come before the relevant Anti-monopoly regulatory agencies, the corporation would un-doubtfully require a vast pool of experts including a large number of Chinese Anti-monopoly lawyers.


Finally, the relevant bodies in China are taking a serious approach to the newly promulgated law.  For example, MOFCOM has recently released guidance notes detailing the procedure for merger control under the Anti-monopoly law.  Although, the approach may be slow when compared to the west, China’s Anti-monopoly law will become something all future and current companies with a Chinese element must take into account.  The Anti-monopoly law cannot be ignored.  Chinese lawyers must step forward and begin to specialize in the regulatory regime concerning the Anti-monopoly law.  Only then will there be adequate pools of labor to feed the demand for Chinese-anti-monopoly lawyers.  However, presently we must continue to bare the plight of an absence of Chinese Anti-monopoly lawyers.