Competition Law/ Anti-Monopoly Law

Subscribe to Competition Law/ Anti-Monopoly Law via RSS

Concurrences Competition Law Journal, in partnership with the New York University School of Law, will hold its inaugural conference "Antitrust in Emerging and Developing Countries” on Friday, October 24, 2014, at the NYU campus. This one-day conference (8:30am to 6:30pm) brings together prestigious speakers from across the world. Leading lawyers, in-house consultant, and enterprises senior managers from emerging and developing countries like China, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, among other jurisdictions will participate in the event. Continue Reading Announcement for Concurrences Journal Event on Antitrust in Developing Countries

Authored by Michael Gu (michaelgu@anjielaw.com) and Yu Shuitian at AnJie Law Firm

Introduction

On 11 September 2014, China’s three antitrust law enforcers held a joint press conference in defense of the recent antitrust probes into multinationals including Microsoft and Japanese auto parts and bearing manufacturers. Issues surrounding the probes came to light after U.S. and European trade groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the European Union Chamber of Commerce said PRC antitrust investigators were unfairly targeting foreign businesses. Director General Mr. Shang Ming of the Anti-Monopoly Bureau of Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”), Director General Mr. Xu Kunlin of the Price Supervision and Anti-Monopoly Bureau of National Development and Reform Commission (“NDRC”) and Director General Ms. Ren Airong of AntiMonopoly and Anti-unfair Competition Enforcement Bureau of State Administration for Industry and Commerce (“SAIC”) attended the press conference. They spoke on their respective Anti-Monopoly Law (“AML”) enforcement positions and answered questions. In particular, they offered updates on the status of several high-profile cases, responded to criticism on selective law enforcement and lack of procedural fairness and transparency. Continue Reading Chinese Competition Authorities Hold Joint Press Conference in Response to Criticism from E.U. and U.S. Trade Groups

Authored by Dr. Zhan Hao (zhanhao@anjielaw.com) and Dr. Annie Xue at AnJie Law Firm

China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) handed down antitrust penalties totaling 1.24 billion yuan on 12 Japanese companies in the past August, including eight auto parts makers and four bearing manufacturers. This action came after a series of global crackdown on auto parts price cartels taking place in the U.S., the EU, Japan and Singapore, while reinforcing the trend of the Chinese antitrust authorities following their counterparts in other major antitrust regimes, especially the U.S. and the EU. Continue Reading China’s Follow-on Public Antitrust Enforcement Intensifies

Authored by Michael Gu (michaelgu@anjielaw.com) and Shuitian Yu at AnJie Law Firm

Introduction

Less than 2 weeks after the record fine (USD 200 million) in the Japanese Auto Parts and Bearing Manufacturers case that shocked the auto parts industry [1], on 2 September 2014, the Chinese price monopoly regulator, NDRC released its decisions [2] to impose combined fines of RMB 110 million (USD 17.89 million) on 23 property insurance companies and a local trade association in Zhejiang province for their price fixing in relation to car insurance. Among the companies involved in the case, one company is fully exempted and two other are granted significant reduction of the fines. Investigations into the Zhejiang branches of other nine insurance companies were terminated because those nine companies had not fixed prices or reached monopoly agreements.Continue Reading Better Late Than Never: NDRC Publishes Full Decisions on Zhejiang Car Insurance Cartel Case – Analysis of NDRC’s Antitrust Law Enforcement Approach

Authored by Michael Gu (michaelgu@anjielaw.com) at AnJie Law Firm

Within six years of implementation of China’s Anti-Monopoly Law, the China’s law enforcement agency responsible for supervising price monopoly, the National Development and Reform Commission ("NDRC"), continues to strengthen its law enforcement efforts with rounds of “antitrust storm” that swept across a number of industries and companies along with record fines. This is especially true since 2013, the NDRC has probed into number of high-profile penalty cases, including the LCD Panel case [1], Moutai and Wuliangye case [2], Baby Formula case [3], Shanghai Gold Jewelers case [4] and Spectacle Lenses case [5]. Meanwhile, the NDRC has also launched investigation into the US high-tech giants, InterDigital and Qualcomm. For InterDigital case, the investigation has been suspended [6]. As for Qualcomm case [7], Qualcomm has manifested their willingness to cooperate with the NDRC in its investigation and has submitted relevant commitment.Continue Reading Note of Caution: Record Fines on 12 Japnese Auto Parts and Bearing Manufactures – Analysis of the NDRC’s Penalty Decision and Countermeasures of Companies

Authored by Dr. Zhan Hao (zhanhao@anjielaw.com) and Dr. Song Ying from AnJie Law Firm

Since the very beginning of 2014, China’s public antitrust enforcement has attracted increasing attention domestically and abroad. Apart from business people, antitrust scholars and lawyers, even common people in the mainland have gotten to be familiar with the terminology of “antitrust”. The enforcement of China’s two antitrust investigative authorities, the National Development and Reform Commission (“NDRC”) and the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (“SAIC”), has foreboded two tendencies recently, which will be elaborated in the following. Continue Reading China’s Antitrust Enforcement is at Its Full Swing

Authored by Dr. Zhan Hao (zhanhao@anjielaw.com) and Li Xiang at AnJie Law Firm

Introduction

There is a joke in reference to the relationship between antitrust and intellectual property and the conflicts between them, which goes, “It is not easy to marry the innovation bride and the competition groom and some have argued that such a marriage will unavoidably lead to divorce.” Nowadays it is not a problem if there is an intrinsic conflict between them. In China, the principle that both of the two legal regimes serve the common purpose of promoting innovation and enhancing consumer welfare is broadly acknowledged.Continue Reading Abuse of Dominance in Relation to Intellectual Property: From China’s Perspective

Authored by Dr. Zhan Hao (zhanhao@anjielaw.com) and Li Xiang at AnJie Law Firm

Introduction

There is a joke in reference to the relationship between antitrust and intellectual property and the conflicts between them, which goes, “It is not easy to marry the innovation bride and the competition groom and some have argued that such a marriage will unavoidably lead to divorce.” Nowadays it is not a problem if there is an intrinsic conflict between them. In China, the principle that both of the two legal regimes serve the common purpose of promoting innovation and enhancing consumer welfare is broadly acknowledged.Continue Reading Abuse of Dominance in Relation to Intellectual Property: From China’s Perspective

Authored by Dr. Zhan Hao (zhanhao@anjielaw.com) from AnJie Law Firm

On June 11, 2014, China’s State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) released the latest draft [1] of regulations designed to implement the Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) with respect to intellectual property rights—Rules of the Administration of Industry and Commerce on the Prohibition of Abuses of Intellectual Property Rights for the Purposes of Eliminating or Restricting Competition (Rules), to solicit public opinions. The Rules describe the authority’s enforcement policies, criteria of proof, and types of acceptable evidence in its analysis of suspected anti-competitive conduct involving IPR. The period of calling for public opinions will expire on July 10, 2014.Continue Reading SAIC Moves Closer to Antitrust Rules for IP

Authored by Michael Gu (michaelgu@anjielaw.com) and Yu Shuitian from AnJie Law Firm

Introduction

On the very last day of the statutory period for a merger review (i.e. June 17, 2014), China’s Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”) rendered its decision to prohibit the proposed shipping alliance among the world’s three largest liner shipping operators, namely, Maersk Line (“Maersk”), Mediterranean Shipping Co and CMA CGM (“P3 Alliance”). The proposed P3 Alliance would be structured as a limited liability partnership in England and Wales. It will be in overall charge of operational matters of all the participating undertakings’ container liner business on the world’s three major shipping routes – Asia to Europe, Transatlantic, and Transpacific. According to MOFCOM’s decision [1] and a statement of the explanations [2], MOFCOM concluded that the P3 Alliance was actually a “close joint operation” and it would have restrictive and anti-competitive effects on the Asia-Europe container shipping market. MOFCOM further pointed out that the parties cannot prove that the positive impact of the proposed alliance will outweigh the negative impact or that the alliance will serve public interest. The parties negotiated with MOFCOM for possible remedial measures for several rounds and submitted a final remedy proposal for review on June 9, 2014. However, MOFCOM observed that the remedy plan lacked legal basis and convincing evidence, thus it cannot resolve MOFCOM’s competition concerns.Continue Reading No Way: Top Three Shipping Liners’ Proposed Alliance was Blocked by Chinese Watchdog