compliance

Subscribe to compliance via RSS

By Susan Ning, Ji Kailun and Hazel Yin

On March 2nd, 2012, the acquisition by Western Digital ("WD") of Hitachi Global Storage Technologies ("Hitachi") finally received conditional nod from the Ministry of Commerce ("MOFCOM"), three month after MOFCOM conditionally cleared the Seagate/Samsung deal1 .

Review Timeline

According to MOFCOM’s announcement 2, this review process is particularly lengthy: the first submission was made on April 2nd, 2011, while the clearance was obtained 11months later.  During this period, this filing was withdrawn by WD shortly before the expiry of the Extended Phase II due to "significant changes of facts".  On November 7th, 2011, WD re-submitted the notification and the filing was cleared at the end of the second round of Phase II.Continue Reading Western Digital/Hitachi Received Conditional Nod from MOFCOM

By Susan Ning and Liu Jia

Most recently,a piece of news related to the Anti-Monopoly Law ("AML")indicates that, the National Development and Reform Commission("NDRC")who is in charge of the implementation of the Price Law and price-related antitrust violation, communicated with the State Administration of Radio, Film, and Television("SARFT")1, for SARFT’s proposed draft of Guidance on Further Regulation of Movie Ticket Business("draft Guidance").It is reported that SARFT is suspected of abusing its administrative power for fixing the price of movie tickets.
 

Fact
 

On 26 February 2012, the draft Guidance was posted on the internet by a micro-blogger. According to the draft Guidance, SARFT divides the sales market of movie tickets into several districts, and sets the guided price (i.e.highest retail price) of movie tickets for each of the district.  It also provides that the movie tickets for theater members and group buyers should not be sold for less than 70% of the listed price.Continue Reading Does SARFT Have the Authority to Regulate Movie Ticket Price?

By Susan Ning, Liu Jia and Hazel Yin

China Securities Regulation Commission ("CSRC") is the authority in charge of supervising Chinese listed companies.  In August 2010 and November 2011, CSRC published on its website two FAQs addressing application of the merger control regime under the Anti-Monopoly Law ("AML") to listed companies.
 Continue Reading CSRC’s Guidance on Merger Control of Listed Chinese Companies

By Susan Ning, Liu Jia and Hazel Yin

On February 9, 2012, the Ministry of Commerce ("MOFCOM") published its first conditional clearance decision in 2012, approving the proposed joint venture ("JV") established by Henkel Hong Kong Holdings Co., Ltd. ("Henkel HK") and Tiande Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. ("Tiande") ("Transaction").  This is the second conditional clearance decision in relation to a joint venture and reaffirms MOFCOM’s approach that formation of a joint venture does constitute a notifiable transaction under the Anti-monopoly Law ("AML"). 1

Review Process.  MOFCOM received the notification on 8 August 2011 and  officially accepted it on 26 September 2011.  The case entered into Phase II on 25 October 2011 and the parties submitted the proposed remedies on 13 January 2012, shortly before MOFCOM decided to extend the Phase II period for another 60 days on 19 January 2012. On 9 February 2012, MOFCOM made the final decision to approve the Transaction with conditions.Continue Reading MOFCOM Issued the Second Conditional Clearance on Joint Venture

作者 宁宣凤、吉凯伦、尹冉冉

        2011年12月30日，商务部发布了《未依法申报经营者集中调查处理暂行办法》（“暂行办法”），将于2012年2月1日正式实施。该暂行办法就达到申报标准但未依法申报的经营者集中，规定了调查处理程序。

        根据暂行办法，任何单位和个人均有权向商务部举报涉嫌应报未报的经营者集中，商务部也可能通过其他途径获得相关信息。如果有初步事实和证据表明存在未依法申报嫌疑，商务部就应当立案，并书面通知被调查的经营者。Continue Reading 商务部将加大未依法申报经营者集中查处力度

By Susan Ning, Ji Kailun and Hazel Yin

On 30 December 2011, the Ministry of Commerce ("MOFCOM") promulgated the Interim Measures on Investigation and Punishment of Failure to Duly Notify Concentrations of Undertakings (《未依法申报经营者集中调查处理暂行办法》, "Interim Measures"), effective from February 1, 2012.1   The Interim Measures set down the procedures for MOFCOM to investigate and penalize companies for failure to notify a notifiable transaction in violation of the Anti-Monopoly Law ("AML").

According to the Interim Measures, MOFCOM shall initiate an investigation ("case acceptance") if there is prima facie evidence, either presented by any third party or it obtains through other channels, indicating that a company fails to notify a notifiable transaction. 
 Continue Reading MOFCOM Getting Tough on Failure to Notify a Concentration

By Susan Ning, Liwei Wang and Hazel Yin

On 27 December 2011, the Ministry of Commerce ("MOFCOM") made a press release on its major merger enforcement work in 2011.1  Mr. Shang Ming, Director General of MOFCOM’s Anti-monopoly Bureau and Chairman of the General Office of the State Council’s Anti-monopoly Commission, gave a briefing at the press release and responded to press inquiries.

According to Mr. Shang, from January to mid-December, 2011, MOFCOM received a total of 194 merger control filings, an increase of 43% compared to the same period last year. Among the received filings, 179 filings have been accepted and 160 filings have been reviewed and closed.

Of the 160 closed cases, 151 cases were granted unconditional approval (94%), 4 cases were granted conditional approval (3%), and 5 cases were withdrawn by the applicants after case acceptance (3%). A breakdown of the filings by the industrial classification for national economic activities is as follows:Continue Reading AMB Director Shang Ming Speaks on Merger Enforcement in 2011

By Susan Ning and Yun Wang

On 29 December 2011, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology ("MIIT") finally promulgated the Various Provisions on Regulating the Order of Internet Information Service Market ("Rules").  Viewed by many as been driven by the QQ/360 disputes in late 2010, the Rules mainly set out the code of conducts for an internet information service provider ("IISP") vis-à-vis its competitors and consumers. The Rules also create a dispute resolution mechanism between IISPs.Continue Reading MIIT Finalizes Rules Governing Competition in Internet Industry

By Susan Ning, Sun Yiming and Hazel Yin

It was reported 1 that on December 15, 2011, the Intermediate Court of Changsha, Hunan Province dismissed a consumer’s complaint that automobile producer Dongfeng Nissan and its 4S store 2 abused their dominant position in violation of China’s Anti-monopoly Law ("AML") by reaping exorbitant profits and expelling their competitors.  The case was originally filed in November 2010 and the court hearing was held in May 4, 2011.  It is the first antitrust lawsuit in the automobile industry and yet another defeated attempt by Chinese consumers in bringing AML private actions.

The plaintiff, Mr. Liu Dahua, is a Nissan car owner.  In October 2009, He had his car repaired at a local 4S store of Nissan.  Finding that the 4S store charged much higher price for repair services than other local auto repair factories, Mr. Liu asked the 4S store to sell the spare parts separately so he could do the repairs elsewhere.  However, the 4S store turned down his request saying that Dongfeng Nissan did not allow its 4S stores to sell spare parts alone, meaning that customers could only purchase the spare parts as well as the repair services together from Dongfeng Nissan’s 4S stores.Continue Reading Consumer Lost Antitrust Action against Dongfeng Nissan

Susan Ning and Ding Liang

On December 16, 2011, the Beijing Lawyers Association organized a seminar inviting Mr. Zhou Zhigao, an official from the Price Supervision, Inspection and Anti-monopoly Bureau (Price Supervision and Anti-monopoly Bureau) of the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), to speak on anti-price monopoly legislation and enforcement. 
 Continue Reading NDRC Doubles Its Antitrust Enforcement Force