Competition Law/ Anti-Monopoly Law

Subscribe to Competition Law/ Anti-Monopoly Law via RSS

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.

Founded in 1866 by Henri Nestlé in Vevey, Switzerland, Nestlé is the world’s leading Nutrition, Health and Wellness company. Nestlé’s product lineup covers from baby food, bottled water, cereals, chocolate & confectionery, coffee, culinary, chilled & frozen food, dairy, drinks to food service, healthcare nutrition, ice cream, petcare, sport nutrition, and further to weight management.

Hsu Fu Chi is China’s largest listed confectionery company, with more than 16,000 sales outlets and 100 sales affiliates. In connection to its revenue, the first quarter of 2011 alone was Rmb1.51bn ($234m). Hsu Fu Chi focuses itself on chocolates, pastries and other sweets markets, and particularly is famous for a breakfast bar called Sachima. It should be recognized that Hsu Fu Chi already developed into a national brand within two decades. Voices from different communities, hence, expressed their worry that this event may ignite nationalist outcries just as it did with Coca-Cola’s negotiations with Huiyuan.Continue Reading Nestlé’s Filing of Acquiring China’ Largest Listed Confectionery Company is Accepted

On September 7th, 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.

The trigger for this lawsuit lands on the claim that Taiyuan Railway Bureau (“A” hereinafter) has not responded to the application from Shanxi transport Group Co., Ltd, (“B” hereinafter) of additional tickets outlet, in spite that B has been applying for the authorization since 2007.

According to the case description presented by B in the Indictment, the key points decisive to the case analysis are summarized as follow by sequence number:Continue Reading Taiyuan Railway Bureau is Sued by Private Enterprises Alleged Monopoly

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)

It should be recognized that the Regulation reflects great significance in many facets without doubt. For one thing, the substantive process of reviewing and assessing concentrations by the Ministry of Commerce is tranparentized in a large degree. As a result, relevant competitors, consumers and other stakeholders of interest could obtain much more convenience for the purpose of supervising antitrust enforcement.

In the second place, the Ministry took this opportunity to standardize in the Regulation, which factors that they will take the most account into in principle, which interests they will consider principally when balancing the pro-competitive and anti-competitive effects of concentration concerned. In this connection, the Regulation would possess the function of conducting, standardizing as well as facilitating the work of antitrust control to concentrations of the Ministry. Continue Reading The First Guideline For Reviewing Concentrations in China Was Freshly Baked

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."Continue Reading China and US Move Closer on Antitrust Collaboration

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：

Continue Reading The Supreme Court Issued Judicial Interpretation on the Anti-monopoly Civil Procedure

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.

Continue Reading Revised Unfair Competition Law responds to changing economy