By Susan Ning, Sun Yiming and Kate Peng

On the International Symposium on Controversial Issues regarding Chinese AML Enforcement held in Hangzhou on Monday this week, both the National Development and Reform Commission (“NDRC”) and the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (“SAIC”) announced that they will increase the transparency of their enforcement actions under the AML. 

NDRC and SAIC are the regulators for anti-monopoly conducts in China. The powers are divided between the two authorities in the way that NDRC is responsible for price-related monopoly conducts, and SAIC is responsible for non-price related monopoly conducts.

Continue Reading Chinese Antitrust Regulators Vow to Increase Transparency

By Susan Ning, Liu Jia and Kate Peng

It is generally known that the antitrust enforcement powers are shared by three government authorities in China: the Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”),  which is responsible for merger control,  the National Development and Reform Commission (“NDRC”), which is responsible for price-related monopoly conducts, and the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (“SAIC”), which is responsible for non-price related monopoly conducts.  Compared to the former two authorities, SAIC  keeps a relatively low profile on its antitrust enforcement actions. 

On July 11, Director General of the Anti-Monopoly and Anti-Unfair Competition Enforcement Bureau of SAIC (“AMAUCEB”), Ms. Ren Airong (任爱荣) made a speech at a conference and introduced the fruits of antitrust enforcement by SAIC since the Anti-Monopoly Law (“AML”)  came into effect on August 1, 2008. 

Continue Reading A General Picture of SAIC’s Antitrust Enforcement

By Susan Ning, Huang Jing and Yin Ranran

On January 26, 2010, three GPS operators filed a complaint to the Guangdong Administration for Industry and Commerce ("Guangdong AIC") claiming that the municipal government of Heyuan city, Guangdong province ("Heyuan Government") abused its administrative power in the course of promoting the global positioning system ("GPS") for automobiles and eliminated and restricted competition in this industry.  After investigation, the Guangdong AIC officially proposed to the Guangdong Government asking for rectification of Heyuan Government’s abusive conducts.

According to news reports, after receiving the complaint, the Guangdong AIC initiated investigations and identified the following facts:
 
 

Continue Reading First Enforcement Action under Anti-Monopoly Law against Administrative Monopoly

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

Susan Ning and Yin Ranran

Recently, the Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) announced that its Anti-monopoly Bureau is to put up a signboard for the "Office of State Council’s Anti-Monopoly Commission (AMC)".  According to Mr. Yao Jian, a spokesman for MOFCOM, the State Council has approved the formal establishment of the AMC Office (even though the AMC Office has been operational within MOFCOM since the enactment of the Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) in 2008).  

As the third anniversary of the AML draws near, Mr. Yao expects that this move will further enhance effective enforcement of the AML and the coordination among the various ministries under the AMC.

Continue Reading Formal Establishment of Anti-Monopoly Commission Office within MOFCOM Approved

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?

By: Susan Ning, Shan Lining and Angie Ng

On 6 May 2011, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) announced that a manufacturer of household and personal care products (the Manufacturer) has been fined a total of RMB2 million for breaching the Price Law.  The NDRC also appeared to have made some Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) references in relation to this case.

Continue Reading Price hikes and price signaling

By Susan Ning, Liu Jia and Angie Ng

On 25 April 2011, the Supreme People’s Court (the Court) published draft rules which govern Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) private actions (Draft Rules)1.   These Draft Rules are entitled "Provisions on Issues Concerning the Application of Law in relation to Trials of Monopoly Civil Dispute Cases".  The Court will consult on these Draft Rules till 1 June 2011.

We note that these Draft Rules provide for applicants to file "joint" applications with others against respondents.  This article outlines what the Draft Rules say about joint applications and outlines how this interacts with the joint application regime pursuant to China’s Civil Procedure Law.


Continue Reading AML Class Actions and The Draft Litigation Rules