Authored by Dr. Zhan Hao (zhanhao@anjielaw.com), Annie Ying Xue (xueying@anjielaw.com)

The simmering war between two Chinese giant internet companies Qihoo 360 Technology Co., Ltd. (Qihoo 360) and Tencent Inc. (Tencent) culminated in Qihoo 360 losing the first antitrust litigation involving instant messaging services (IM services) in the trial of first instance. On March 28, the Guangdong High People’s Court (Guangdong High Court) declared that Tencent did not commit the abuse of dominance as defined in the PRC Anti-Monopoly Law (AML). The Guangdong High Court further held Qihoo 360 responsible for the 790, 000 RMB litigation costs. Qihoo 360 expressed that it would retain the rights to appeal.

In November 2011, Qihoo 360 filed a lawsuit with the Guangdong High Court under the AML against Tencent’s two subsidiaries: Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd.. Qihoo 360 accused Tencent of abusive practices and claimed damages of 150 million RMB.

Given the current stage of the development in PRC private antitrust litigation, Qihoo 360 v. Tencent is a landmark case. The social influence of the plaintiff and the defendants, the claimed amount of damages, and long-term hostility between the two parties are unprecedented.

This article seeks to highlight the key issues presented by the recently issued decision. Continue Reading Tencent Defeats Qihoo 360 in First Antitrust Litigation Involving Instant Messaging Services

Authored by Dr. Zhan Hao (zhanhao@anjielaw.com)

With more than four years’ experience, the Ministry of Commerce of PRC (“MOFCOM”) is becoming an increasingly important and high-profile merger review jurisdiction in the globe. As of 30th December, 2012, MOFCOM has handled 533 cases in total, which is quite striking. With regard to both the legislation and law enforcement, MOFCOM have gained impressed progress.

Supporting Legislation

There are eight concentration-related supporting regulations or guidelines have been enacted between 2008 and 2011 in all. In the passing 2012, MOFCOM mainly focused on proceeding supporting legislation in two aspects.

One is rules on imposing conditions on concentrations, before which MOFCOM issued the Interim Provisions on Asset or Business Divestiture in Concentration between Undertakings in 2010. With the target to summarize experience in implementing this Interim Provisions and address discovered problems, MOFCOM decided to enact a new legislation to make a full range of regulation on the proposal, assessment, implementation, supervision, modification of conditions on the concentration as well as the liability issue.Continue Reading Briefing on MOFCOM’s Antitrust Enforcement

Authored by Michael Gu (michaelgu@anjielaw.com)

Background

Just one and half months following the breakthrough LCD cartel case, the Chinese price-monopoly watchdog, two provincial branches of National Development and Reform Commission of the People’s Republic of China (“NDRC”), rendered another harsh punishment against two luxury Chinese Liquor producers.

On 22 February 2013, the NDRC’s provincial branches (i.e. Guizhou Provincial Price Bureau and Sichuan Development and Reform Commission) officially announced that two most famous Chinese liquor producers were respectively fined RMB 247 million and RMB 202 million for their monopoly behaviors. The total penalties combined amount to RMB 449 million, overtaking the total penalty of RMB 353 million imposed on six internal LCD manufacturers early last months, reach a new record high since the China’s Anti-monopoly Law came into force in 2008.   Continue Reading Rumors Come True:NDRC Imposes Record High Penalties on Luxury Chinese Liquors

Authored by Dr. Zhan Hao (zhanhao@anjielaw.com), Michael Gu (michaelgu@anjielaw.com), Dr. Song Ying (songying@anjielaw.com)

Just after the Chinese New Year, according to relevant source, the National Development and Reform Commission (‘NDRC’), one of the three main China’s anti-monopoly enforcement authorities may impose a new high penalty amount to CNY 449 million ( equal to 71.47 million USD) against two Chinese high-end liquor companies soon, 247 million for Kweichow Moutai and 202 million for Wuliangye respectively.

This action of NDRC actually is only around one and a half month following the LCD case’s 353 million-penalty in January, which can’t be denied that NDRC is becoming more and more aggressive regarding its steps of China’s antitrust enforcement.

As a matter of fact, Kweichow Moutai has issued a statement on its website as early as 15 January 2013 that it will cancel the marketing policies which may violate the Anti-Monopoly Law of China (AML) and conduct a complete rectification due to the investigation by the NDRC and the Price Bureau of Guizhou Province. On 18th of the same month, another top liquor company Wuliangye also published the announcement expressing its cooperation attitude to make rectification in compliance with the AML. Some people forecasted at that time that NDRC may suspend the case partly due to the Stated-owned Enterprise (ome ’) identity of the two and another ground may rest on that vertical agreements at the present time was not the priority of NDRC’s enforcement yet. Only one month later, however, people are surprised that a new record fine may be imposed on these two SOEs soon. Continue Reading NDRC May Fine Two Famous Liquor Companies RMB 449m

Authored by Dr. Zhan Hao (zhanhao@anjielaw.com), Michael Gu (michaelgu@anjielaw.com), Dr. Song Ying (songying@anjielaw.com)

At the end of 2011, the Administration for Industrial and Commerce in Hunan province had received multiple reports concerning monopoly agreements and elimination of competition on new auto insurance market conducted by the New Auto Centre.

The State Administration of Industry and Commerce (SAIC) authorized the administrative bureau for industry and commerce in Hunan (Hunan administrative bureau) to further investigate the case.

Accordingly Hunan administrative bureau opened formal antitrust proceedings to investigate the involved enterprises. During the investigation, the implementation of the monopoly agreements has been suspended by the parties and the monopoly behavior of New Auto Centre has been stopped by Hunan administrative bureau.

According to the investigation, the enterprises, which under the organization of the insurance associations in some cities of Hunan province, have concluded a monopoly agreement on car insurance issues and set up the New Auto Centre to implement the agreement. The investigated enterprises made it compulsory for all new car owners to purchase the insurance from the New Auto Centre. Such agreement obviously has segmented the market of new auto insurance.Continue Reading Auto-insurance Monopolistic Case Investigated in Hunan

Authored by Michael Gu (michaelgu@anjielaw.com)

Just at the beginning of 2013, the National Development and Reform Commission of the People’s Republic of China (“NDRC”), the Chinese Price-Monopoly Regulator, has announced a breakthrough penalty against six leading international liquid crystal display (“LCD”) panel manufacturers, including two leading South Korean-based multinationals (i.e. Samsung and LG) and four Taiwanese companies (i.e. Chi Mei, AU Optronics, Chunghwa Picture Tubes, and HannStar). The total value of the penalty amounts to RMB 353 millions. This is the largest price-related monopoly case that the Chinese competition authority has ever investigated and penalized in terms of the total fines.

The breakdown of penalties is illustrated in the diagram below. (Unit: RMB Million)

                                        

Continue Reading Most Severe Price Penalty Decision Rendered by NDRC

Authored by Dr. Zhan Hao (zhanhao@anjielaw.com), Dr. Song Ying (songying@anjielaw.com)

At the right beginning of 2013, the National Development and Reform Commission of China (“NDRC”), one of three main anti-monopoly regulatory authorities in PRC, imposed fines in a total amount of RMB 353 million (approximately USD 56 million) on 6 LCD panel manufacturers, which is the harshest penalty that NDRC has ever imposed and also the first time NDRC pointed the gun at multinational companies in its anti-trust enforcement history.

The parties fined include two Korean giants Samsung and LG of as well as Chimei, AU Optronics, Chunghwa Picture Tubes and HannStar from Taiwan. According to NDRC’ notice on its official website, the 6 LCD manufacturers have convened 53 meetings during the timeframe of 2001 to 2006 either in Taiwan or in South Korea to exchange market-sensitive information and further collude the product price.

As people may have noticed, the NDRC’s action against the 6 LCD panel manufacturers actually is an investigation following up probe of EU and U.S. antitrust authority several years ago. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that the sanction of NDRC is relatively low compared to the gesture of their counterparts in EU and U.S., although it is already the highest fine ticket ever from Chinese antitrust enforcement authorities.Continue Reading The Price Law or the Anti-Monopoly Law: Observation of NDRC’s Antitrust Enforcement in China

Authored by Dr. Zhan Hao (zhanhao@anjielaw.com), Dr. Song Ying (songying@anjielaw.com)

"We will disclose the approved cases without any condition by quarterly summary hereafter. In the current stage, disclosed information is only limited to case name and concentration parties. Whether additional information would be disclosed later is still under discussion.” This statement is from briefing of

Authored by Dr. Zhan Hao (zhanhao@anjielaw.com), Dr. Song Ying (songying@anjielaw.com)

China’s National Development and Reform Commission (“NDRC”) has imposed a heavy penalty of total RMB 353 million yuan against six companies for the monopolistic behavior of price-fixing on liquid crystal display (“LCD”) panel in mainland China as announced on January 4, 2013. The six companies include Samsung, LG, as well as four firms from Taiwan——Chi Mei Optoelectronics, AU Optronics, Chunghwa Picture Tubes and HannStar Display. What worth noting is that it is the first time for NDRC to issue a penalty against foreign firms for monopolistic behavior which is also the heaviest penalty ever on price-related violations by Chinese antitrust enforcement authority until now.

NDRC has received multiple complains on the price-related monopolistic behavior of above companies from domestic enterprises since December 2006. As found by NDRC through the investigation, Samsung, LG and other four Taiwanese companies "conspired" in a price fixing scheme through monthly meetings (“crystal meetings”) from 2001 to 2006. During the period, the six companies held 53 crystal meetings in Taiwan and South Korea to exchange information related to price and make agreements on LCD panel pricing which caused huge damage on other undertakings and customers.Continue Reading NDRC Imposed the Penalty against LCD Panel Companies for Their Monopolistic Behavior

Authored by Dr. Zhan Hao (zhanhao@anjielaw.com)

With the year of 2013 approaching, MOFCOM held a press conference specific on “anti-monopoly work progress in 2012” on December 27, 2012. Shang Ming, the Director General of MOFCOM Anti-monopoly Bureau and Anti-monopoly Committee of the State Council gave a briefing on the legislation and enforcement progress of antitrust review on concentrations and answered questions from reporters.

In this occurrence, four issues are mainly involved and they are: (1) supporting legislation of antitrust review on concentrations; (2) law enforcement of antitrust review on concentrations; (3) international cooperation carried out by MOFCOM; and (4) propaganda and training carried out by MOFCOM.

Supporting Legislation

According to Mr. Shang’s introduction, there are eight concentration-related supporting regulations or guidelines have been enacted between 2008 and 2011 in all. In the passing 2012, MOFCOM mainly focused on proceeding supporting legislation in two aspects. One is rules on imposing conditions on concentrations, before which MOFCOM issued the Interim Provisions on Asset or Business Divestiture in Concentration between Undertakings in 2010. With the target to summarize experience in implementing this Interim Provisions and address discovered problems, MOFCOM decided to enact a new legislation to make a full range of regulation on the proposal, assessment, implementation, supervision, modification of conditions on the concentration as well as the liability issue.Continue Reading Briefing on MOFCOM’s antitrust enforcement in 2012