Competition Law/ Anti-Monopoly Law

Subscribe to Competition Law/ Anti-Monopoly Law via RSS

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.
 Continue Reading Landmark case: Coca-cola & Huiyuan Concentration(2)

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.

Continue Reading China’s SAIC Faces New AML Hurdles

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.

Continue Reading China Mobile under Anti-monopoly Law Suit

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.

Continue Reading China’s SAIC and the Enforcement of the AML

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.

Continue Reading Coca-Cola & Huiyuan: Explanation, Theory, An attempt to Rationalize?

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.
 Continue Reading The First Steps toward Economic Analysis of the AML

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.
 Continue Reading Private Litigation – Unresolved Problems of China’s Anti-Monopoly Law