By Susan Ning, Zheng Ziqing and Angie Ng
At the brink of the New Year, it is timely to take stock of the antitrust merger control work we’ve undertaken for our clients and provide some observations re the merger control regime in China:Continue Reading Observations re the merger control regime in China
By Susan Ning, Huang Jing and Angie Ng
We often receive queries from clients in relation to whether group restructures need to be notified to the Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) for antitrust merger control clearance.
This article provides some general guidance as to when a group restructure needs to be notified to MOFCOM for antitrust merger control clearance.Continue Reading When do group restructures need to be notified?
By: Richard Wigley ofKing & Wood ‘s Intellectual Property Group
Perceptions (and Misperceptions) of IPR Lawsuits in the P.R.C.
There is no question that many foreign companies operating in the People’s Republic of China struggle with the protection of their intellectual property rights ("IPR"). The concerns of companies with protecting their valuable IPR in a developing country such as the P.R.C. are legitimate and serious. Though many of the executives and attorneys of these companies may view themselves as "old China hands" and have many years of experience in fighting to protect their IPR in the P.R.C., many more are relative newcomers to China and their views of IPR protection are shaped by not only their own experience, but by the perceptions of others, which may or may not be valid. For instance, some overseas business executives or legal counsel on occasion may voice their view that pursuing litigation as a foreign firm against a P.R.C. company over an alleged infringement in a P.R.C. court is a waste of time and money, as either they have little chance of prevailing, or, if they should prevail, the damages awarded will be so small as to not provide any substantive deterrent. Though every alleged infringement is case-specific, it is, however, useful to separate the perceptions (and misperceptions) from the realities of foreign-related IPR litigations in the P.R.C.Continue Reading Challenging Perceptions: New Statistics from the Supreme People’s Court on IPR Lawsuits in the PRC
By: Ariel Ye and James Rowland
I. Introduction
The UK Bribery Act 2010 (c.23) (the “Act”) received royal assent on 8 April 2010 and will come into force in April 2011.[1]
The Act replaces the offences of bribery at common law and under earlier UK statutes[2] (which received much criticism for their lack of clarity and use of inconsistent terminology[3]) with two general offences. The first covers the offering, promising or giving of an advantage with an intention to induce or reward improper conduct [4] (active bribery) and the second deals with the requesting, agreeing to receive or accepting of an advantage that is improper or is an inducement or reward for improper conduct[5] (passive bribery). The Act also creates a discrete offence of bribery of a foreign public official and a new offence where a commercial organization fails to prevent bribery.[6] The Act ensures that the law against bribery applies equally to the bribery of persons exercising public and selected private functions without discriminating between the two.[7]Continue Reading The Bribery Act 2010 (United Kingdom) and Compliance with the Written Laws Against Bribery in China
By Richard Wigley of King & Wood’s Intellectual Property Group
Background on the Campaign
High rates of intellectual property rights (“IPRs”) infringement in China have in recent years been of increasing concern to foreign and domestic rights holders alike. Though, as China is a developing country, such high rates of infringement are, arguably, to some extent an economic structural issue, these infringements are seen as an impediment to China’s economic growth prospects. Furthermore, China has an obligation as a signatory of TRIPs (Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) to maintain an effective regime for the protection of IPRs.Continue Reading National Campaign to “Crack Down” on Intellectual Property Rights (“IPRs”) Violations: Economic Development through Improved IPR Enforcement
By: Susan Ning and Ding Liang
On 22 December 2010, the Minister of Commerce Chen Deming stated in his annual working report at the 2010 National Commerce Work Conference that the Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) intends to combine the following processes: (a) administration of foreign investment; (b) anti-monopoly merger control review; and (c) national security review from next year.
According to Minister Chen’s report, the main objective in combining the above mentioned processes is to "protect the security of domestic industries".
It is not clear how the processes in (a) to (c) as mentioned above will be combined or integrated. This article provides a brief overview of how the processes set out above are currently being conducted.Continue Reading Foreign Investment Approval + Antitrust Merger Control Review + National Security Review – a Combined More Streamlined Process?
Interview with Mark Schaub, a partner with King & Wood’s Corporate Group.
Gasgoo.com: Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A in China) is not simply win-win for owners and companies. It’s also about win-win or win-lose for local governments. For example, small manufacturers provide jobs, taxes and gifts to local officials. If a larger manufacturer acquires a small one, jobs will move along with it. This is the main reason the industry is so spread out. No one wants to let go of jobs in their district. So what’s your opinion on dealing with the local government in an M&A case?Continue Reading Fraud Investigation and Practical Solutions in the Acquisition Process
By: Susan Ning, Zheng Ziqing and Angie Ng
On 18 December 2010, Mr Shang Ming (Chief of the Antimonopoly Bureau, of the Ministry of Commerce or MOFCOM) delivered a speech at an academic conference entitled "International Symposium on Enforcement of China’s Anti-Monopoly Law in the New Economy" held at Beijing’s People’s University.
During Mr Shang’s speech, he revealed the following facts and figures about MOFCOM’s merger control regime:Continue Reading 2010 Merger Control Stocktake – China
By: Susan Ning, Shan Lining and Angie Ng
On 17 November 2010, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) organized a "price monopoly" workshop in Chengdu to take stock of: (a) developments in relation to price related breaches of the Anti-Monopoly Law (AML); and (b) developments in relation to provincial level price authorities and their enforcement of the AML (see our article entitled "Provincial Price Authorities and the AML" dated 20 November 2010.[1]Continue Reading Price Related Breaches of the AML and the Price Law – How Many Public Cases Have There Been?
By: Yi Zhang, King & Wood’s Securities & Capital Markets Group
Introduction
Legislative research on industrial investment funds started in early 2000. Since the official administrative regulations regarding such funds have not yet been publicly released, the government has been concurrently implementing pilot projects and draft administrative regulations on the subject.
During the pilot period, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) drafted the Administrative Regulations on Industrial Investment Funds, later changing the name to the Administrative Regulations on Private Equity Funds in order to make them applicable to the entire private equity fund industry.