The Provisional Measures on Investigating and Penalizing Violation of Notification Obligations for Concentrations of undertakings (hereinafter referred to as “Provisional Measures”) was officially published on 30th December 2011 by MOFCOM and will come into effect on 1st February 2012.

Such regulation has been for a long time called on given that not just a few undertakings often choose to escape MOFCOM’s jurisdiction in the antitrust review on concentrations, which reached the threshold by AML and relevant regulations, thus, has derogated MOFCOM’s enforcement effects.

In pursuance to Article 3 of the Provisional Measures, as expected, MOFCOM is the authority concerned in investigating and penalizing concentrations that are not notified in compliance with the law, and where necessary, provincial commence departments can be commissioned to assist MOFCOM regarding its work.Continue Reading Coming out after a Long Wait

On 2nd March of 2012, MOFCOM publicized another conditional clearance on concentration in the hard disk industry, which comes three months after MOFCOM imposed similar conditions on Seagate’s acquisition of Samsung’s hard drive business. At this time, the concentration parties are Western Digital’s and Viviti Technologies, and the relevant market is defined by MOFCOM as the worldwide market for hard disk drive.Continue Reading Another Conditional Clearance on Hard Disk Industry Concentration

MOFCOM is getting more and more efficient upon dealing with its own work. Only 10 days after the Alpha V/Savio conditional clearance, MOFCOM imposed conditions on another proposed concentration between General Electric (China)., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as GE China) and China Shenhua Coal to Liquid and Chemical Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as CSCLC) on 10th, November, 2011. It is noticed that GE China/CSCLC is already the NO.2 conditional clearance on concentration only two months after the “Provisional Regulation on the Assessment on the Competitive Effects of Concentration of Undertakings” is officially released in the end of August (hereinafter referred to as “Provisional Regulation”). That to some extent gives people the impression that the Provisional Regulation does not only give administrative counterparts guidance, but also standardized and facilitated MOFCOM’s antitrust reviewing work on concentration in some degree.Continue Reading MOFCOM’s Second Conditional Clearance on Concentration after the Release of its Guidance on Analysis of Competitive Influence

On 31st October 2011, MOFCOM posted the No.73 Notice in its website, announcing to clear proposed concentration between Penelope Co., Ltd and (referred to as “Penelope” hereinafter) and Savio Macchine Tessili S.p.A. (referred to as “Savio” hereinafter) with certain conditions. Without doubt, the reasoning and analytical instruments utilized by MOFCOM would shed some light on of what attitude and approach hold by MOFCOM when facing anti-monopoly review of concentration.

According to MOFCOM’s notice, the proposed acquiring party (Penelope) is established as a tool specifically for the sake of this concentration transaction. Alpha Private Equity Fund V (referred to as “Alpha V” hereinafter) is Penelope’s wholly-owned controlling shareholder (the “parent”), which is a private equity fund and invests in non-ferrous metal recycling, production and sales of home textile and textile machinery. Meanwhile, being the largest shareholder, Alpha V holds 27.9% equity shares of Uster technologies Co., Ltd (referred to as “Uster” hereinafter)

Proposed acquired party in the said concentration (Savio) is a manufacturer of textile machinery, engaging in the production of electronic yarn clearers for winders, twisters and rotor-spinning frames. Beside, Phenanthrene Brothers Co., Ltd (referred to as “Phenanthrene Brothers” hereinafter).is a wholly owned subsidiary of Savio.Continue Reading MOFCOM Announced the Another Conditional Clearance on Concentration

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 Has Been Freshly Baked

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 25 January 2010, European Commission said that it is ready to review a plan by the world’s second and third largest iron ore miners, Rio Tinto and BHP Biliton, to combine some iron ore mining operations in Australia. The European antitrust watchdog said that it would investigate whether the companies’ plan to pool iron ore mining in western Australia would affect the global prices or supply for iron ore transported by sea, known as seaborne iron ore. The Commission set no deadline for completion of the investigation, citing the complexity of the case, cooperation from the companies involved and exercise of the rights of defense, among other factors, to justify the open-ended time limit. Continue Reading Will Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton Make It This Time? A Few Comments From The Perspective Of Antitrust Law

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

From the beginning of 2009, the year of the ox, the legislative framework of the Chinese Anti-monopoly Law (AML) has been accelerated. The acceleration is necessary to correct some of the major disadvantages of the AML. It is hoped the corrections will prevent the AML from being seen as abstract and hard to enforce.

Until now, we have heard little from regulatory organizations related to the enforcement of Chinese Anti-monopoly law including the; Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM); State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) and the National Reform and Development Commission (SDPC). However, there appears to be a consensus amongst the organizations for a need to focus on the legislation progress, and to promulgate Guiding Opinions, Guidelines, Working Guidelines and Regulation and Administrative Procedures in an expedited fashion. Among these three organizations, it seems MOFCOM is moving far quicker than the others.
 Continue Reading Progressing the Notion of Concentration under China’s Anti-monopoly Law

During the drafting of the Chinese Anti-monopoly Law (AML), the level at which the threshold of concentration notification was to be set, aroused fierce debate. In the end however, AML did not specifically stipulate the notification criteria in detail.Article 21 of AML states:

Business operators shall declare in advance the concentration reaching the threshold of declaration prescribed by the State Council to the Anti-monopoly Law Enforcement Agency, otherwise, they shall not implement the concentration.

Such a vaguely worded clause has caused confusion within the legal profession. It certainly begs the question: Why did AML not explicitly stipulate the threshold of notification? Examining both the lawmaking process prior to the creation of AML as well as the drafting of AML itself may prove to be helpful. 

Continue Reading The Threshold of Concentration: Anti-monopoly Notification in China