anti-monopoly law

Subscribe to anti-monopoly law via RSS

By Susan Ning and Huang Jing

On 7 September 2011, the Shanxi Combined Transportation Group Company (SCTG) filed an administrative law suit with the Taiyuan Xinghualing District People’s Court against the Taiyuan Bureau of Railways (the "SCTG Case"). On 15 September 2011, the Taiyuan Xinghualing District People’s Court accepted the SCTG Case.

SCTG alleged that it had submitted two applications to the Taiyuan Bureau of Railways for establishing new railway ticket agent stores on 25 January 2011; but Taiyuan Bureau of Railways did not respond to such applications.  According to SCTG, Taiyuan Bureau of Railways’ conduct was a violation of the Anti-monopoly Law (AML), and constituted administrative omission.   Thus SCTG filed the administrative lawsuit.Continue Reading Taiyuan Bureau of Railways Sued for Antitrust Violation

By Susan Ning, Sun Yiming and Liu Jia

Most recently, the hottest  topic on China’s Anti-monopoly Law (AML) is a piece of news spreading on the internet, indicating that China Telecom, one of China’s largest state-owned enterprises is under antitrust investigation conducted by a "relevant" competition authority for its suspected abuse of dominance in broadband market. If the abuse is successfully established, China Telecom may face huge fines under the AML. The news is also quoted by Xinhuanet.com, an authoritative website run by the government. However there has been no formal response from China Telecom or any competition authorities so far in this respect.

This article outlines details to do with China Telecom’s conduct and examines whether or to what extent such conduct would be considered as an abuse of dominance and thus in violation of the AML.
 Continue Reading Chinese Antitrust Enforcement Agencies Ready to Show Teeth to Large State-owned Enterprises?

Susan Ning and Yin Ranran

On September 2, 2011, China’s Ministry of Commerce ("MOFCOM") released on its website the Provisional Rules on Assessment of Competitive Effects of Concentration of Business Operators (MOFCOM 2011 Announcement No. 55, the "Rules").  With 14 articles, the Rules elaborated on the factors to be considered by MOFCOM in assessing the competitive effects of a business concentration, which have been listed in Article 27 of the Anti-monopoly Law ("AML")1 .  The Rules are implemented as of today (September 5, 2011).

The Rules set out the basic methodology for its competitive analysis and the basic elements for application of each factor in a merger review process.  The Rules appear to identify market share/market control power and market concentration levels as the most important factors to be considered by MOFCOM in assessment of competitive effects of a concentration.Continue Reading MOFCOM’s New Antitrust Rules Shed Light on Its Competitive Assessment Process

By Susan Ning, Huang Jing and Yin Ranran

On 25 August 2011, the Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) released the MOFCOM Rules for Implementation of Relevant Issues regarding National Security Review Mechanism for Mergers and Acquisitions of Domestic Enterprises by Foreign Investors (NSR Rules).  From 1 September 2011, the Rules replaces the MOFCOM Interim Rules for Implementation of Relevant Issues regarding National Security Review Mechanism for Mergers and Acquisitions of Domestic Enterprises by Foreign Investors (NSR Interim Rules) issued on 4 March 2011 (see our article entitled "MOFCOM issues national security review interim rules").

Compared with the Interim Rules, the key change we see in the NSR Rules is that MOFCOM clearly states that the authority will assess the applicability of the national security review (NSR) process from the substance and actual impact of a transaction; and that foreign investors shall not evade the NSR regime via alternative transaction structures, including but not limited to warehousing arrangements, trusts, multi-tier investments, leases, loans, contractual control, or offshore transactions, etc.Continue Reading Updated National Security Review Rules: A Justifiable Cause of Anxiety?

By Susan Ning and Yin Ranran

On June 30, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology ("MIIT") issued the Opinion on Regulating Conducts of Basic Telecoms Enterprises on College Campuses ("MIIT Opinion").  The MIIT Opinion governs specified conduct by basic telecom enterprises1  -in relation to unfair competition issues within college or university campuses.

Continue Reading MIIT Issues Guidance to Maintain Fair Competition Order among Basic Telecom Operators on College Campuses

By Susan Ning, Liu Jia and Yin Ranran
The QQ / 360 battle broken out towards the end of 2010 (see our article entitled "The QQ / 360 Disputes – Who, What, Where, When and Preliminary Antitrust Analysis") has stirred lasting and heated discussions about anti-monopoly issues in the emerging Internet industry in China. 
 

About one month ago, Renmin University of China organized the thirteenth Anti-Monopoly Law Summit Forum, which was focused on discussion of fair competition in the Internet industry of China and protection of netizens’ interests.  Officials from various government agencies, such as the Law Committee of the National People’s Congress, Legislative Affairs of the State Council, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology ("MIIT"), the State of Administration for Industry and Commerce ("SAIC’), the Ministry of Commerce, and the National Development and Reform Commission, as well as judges from the Supreme People’s Court participated in the forum..Continue Reading Potential Monopoly In China’s Internet Industry Caught Attention of Chinese Competition Authorities

By Susan Ning, Liu Jia and Angie Ng

The National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) has co-organised a conference focusing on price related monopoly agreements with the European Commission Directorate-General for Competition (DG Competition).  The conference took place from 1 to 2 June 2011.

Antitrust authorities from the following jurisdictions attended this conference: the European Union, the United States of America, Germany, Spain, Ireland, Australia, Greece.  From China, officials from several government agencies attended the conference, including officials from: the Law Committee of the National People’s Congress, the Supreme People’s Court, Legislative Affairs of the State Council, the NDRC, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the Ministry of Commerce, the State of Administration of Industry and Commerce, and pricing authorities based in Beijing, Tianjin and Shanghai.  Other attendees include representatives from China Consumers’ Association, China Cleaning Industry Association and academics.Continue Reading NDRC and EU’s DG Competition organize conference on price-related monopoly agreements

By Susan Ning, Chai Zhifeng and Angie Ng

On June 2, 2011, Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) publicly announced the first conditional merger clearance in 2011. At its [2011] No. 33 Announcement, MOFCOM cleared Uralkali’s proposed acquisition of Silvinit (the Parties) (both potash producers based in Russia) with conditions.  This is the 7th conditional merger clearance since the enactment of the Anti-monopoly Law (AML) in 2008.   MOFCOM is obliged by statute to publish conditional clearances. 

The following are the salient points to note vis-à-vis this conditional clearance:Continue Reading The Russian Potash Deal – first conditional clearance of 2011

By: Susan Ning, Angie Ng and Shan Lining

Last week (between 26 to 27 May 2011), it was reported in the press that Unilever has raised the prices of specific products (including Lux and Hazeline branded shampoos and shower gels) by 10% in some cities including Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou (Unilever’s price increases).  This was touted as a surprising move given that Unilever was recently fined by the price authority, the National Development Reform Commission (NDRC) in relation to conduct to do with its proposed price increases just earlier in the month (see below for more details to do with this fine) (Unilever’s price signaling conduct).

This article outlines details to do with Unilever’s price signaling conduct and subsequent price increases and examines whether or to what extent such conduct would be considered in breach of the Price Law and the Anti-Monopoly Law in China.Continue Reading Price signaling and price hikes – a breach of the Price Law or Anti-Monopoly Law?