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.
Nestlé plans to purchase a 43.5% stake …
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.Continue Reading Can Companies Avoid Filing Concentrations?
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.Continue Reading Jurisdiction for private anti-monopoly litigation
On April 25th, 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：
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:
Continue Reading Revised Unfair Competition Law responds to changing economy
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.Continue Reading Market dominance and the Internet: new industry, new rules?
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.
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.
Continue Reading New Notice Strengthens National Security Review
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.
Continue Reading SAIC regulations signal greater anti-monopoly enforcement
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.Continue Reading NDRC issues new anti-monopoly pricing regulations
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.
