English

Subscribe to English via RSS

On 1 November 2014, the People’s Congress of China approved proposed amendments to China’s Administrative Procedure Law (“APL”) respect of private actions against government agencies for abuses of administrative powers.

Although the AML includes an entire chapter addressing abuses of administrative powers, the provisions are considered to be somewhat lacking in bite. The antitrust enforcement authorities are only authorized to provide advice to the body responsible for a government agency which is alleged to have abused its administrative powers. The antitrust authorities are unable to take any action against, or impose any penalties on, the agency themselves. In addition, to date there have been very few private enforcement actions against government agencies as the existing legislation makes it difficult for individuals and entities to bring such actions.

The reforms, which are explained in this article, are intended to rectify the status quo and will take effect from 1 May 2015.
Continue Reading China Toughens Up on Abuses of Administrative Powers

On 4 November 2014, the State Administrative for Industry and Commerce (“SAIC”) published a decision in which it found that the Pizhou branch of the Xuzhou City Tobacco Corporation (the “Pizhou Tobacco Branch”) had abused its dominant position in the tobacco wholesale distribution market by treating customers of equal standing in a discriminatory manner.  The SAIC found that the Pizhou Tobacco Branch had violated Article 17 of the PRC Anti-Monopoly Law (the “AML”), which prohibits business operators in a dominant market position from engaging in abusive conduct that eliminates or restricts competition, and it imposed a fine of RMB 1.7 million.

We set out in this article some points that are of particular relevance to undertakings subject to the jurisdiction of the AML in evaluating the legal risks of conduct which may constitute an abuse of a dominant market position.
Continue Reading SAIC’s First Decision on Discriminatory Treatment

By Jiang Junlu    King & Wood Mallesons’ Labor & Employment Group

Since 2000, Chinese enterprises have been responding to the call of the “going out” strategy of the State to conduct overseas merger and acquisition. Over ten odd years, transnational mergers and acquisitions have increased noticeably in number and are considerable in scale. However, merger and acquisition results were often unsatisfactory and there were even many unsuccessful cases. As for risks of transnational merger and acquisition, in addition to traditional political risks, financial risks, operating risks and so on, the impact of labor problems in target countries on the success of merger and acquisition has become increasingly apparent. From the perspective of three cases of overseas merger and acquisition of Chinese enterprises “striking a reef”, this article warns that Chinese enterprises trying to “go out” should attach full importance to labor problems in transnational merger and acquisition.
Continue Reading Study on Labor Problems Encountered in Outbound Strategy in China

By Xiong Jin King & Wood Mallesons’ Corporate Group

Since the global financial crisis in 2008, China has seen explosive growth in overseas investment. The Ministry of Commerce forecasts that the size of China’s outbound direct investment will exceed that of foreign capital utilization for the first time in 2015. [1] Australia is one of the earliest countries which Chinese companies have gone out for, and is the second largest target for China’s overseas investment, second only to the United States. Mining is undoubtedly the industry that has attracted most investment from China into Australia. Although there has been a decline in China’s investment into the Australian mining industry in recent years due to factors such as the falling market demand, carbon tax policy, the emergence of alternative countries with resources, the investment in the mining industry in Australia continues to account for the majority of the total investment value.
Continue Reading Factors for Successful Chinese Investment in the Australian Mining Industry: A Case Study of Baosteel Consortium’s Acquisition of Aquila

By Paul Schroder  King and Wood Mallesons’ Sydney office 

On November 17, 2014 China signed a declaration of intent with Australia concluding the first stage of bilateral negotiations on a free trade agreement (ChAFTA). Australia will reduce the tariffs on all Chinese products to zero eventually and China will reduce the tariffs on most of Australian products to zero. In the services sector, both sides promised to open their markets to each other’s service providers in a meaningful way. In the investment field, although the details have not yet been released, MOFCOM announced that both sides have agreed to grant each other “most favored nation status”.

They also agreed to significantly reduce the review thresholds for corporate investment, to increase market access opportunities, and improve the predictability and transparency for investment. The agreement will cover more than 10 areas, including trade in goods and services, investment and trade rules. It will also cover subjects such as e-commerce and government procurement. According to MOFCOM

“The China-Australia FTA negotiations have realized the goal of comprehensiveness, high quality and balance of interests. The signing of the agreement will allow the two countries to fully utilize their respective economic advantages, boost win-win cooperation, bring mutual benefits and promote the in-depth development of bilateral economic and trade ties.”
Continue Reading ChAFTA 2014: The winners, the thresholds and the opportunities

By Xu Ping, Yao Lijuan and Gao Wei    King & Wood Mallesons’ M&A Group

On November 4, 2014, the National Development and Reform Commission (“NDRC”) released the latest draft updating the current 2011 “Foreign Direct Investment Industries Guidance Catalogue (“2014 Draft”),” and called for public opinions on the draft until December 3, 2014.

The Foreign Direct Investment Industries Guidance Catalogue (“Catalogue”) is the central policy of the Chinese government that regulates the inflow of foreign investment in various Chinese industries. The Catalogue classifies foreign direct investments in the industrial sectors as “encouraged,” “restricted,” “permitted,” or “prohibited” and imposed restrictions on foreign investment forms and shareholdings on certain key industrial sectors. Since its inception in 1995, the Catalogue has been revised once every few years. The 2014 Draft, once takes into effect, will become the sixth revision and replaces the current 2011 Catalogue.
Continue Reading “China Welcomes Foreign Investment”——With Draft Revision of Foreign Direct Investment Industries Guidance Catalogue, China Plans Sweeping Foreign Investment Reforms

By Susan Ning, Kate Peng, Sarah Eder and Gao Sibo

 Introduction 

A major concern for undertakings which are involved in international cartel cases is the possibility of receiving overlapping punishments for their cartel conduct by competition authorities in different jurisdictions.

Various jurisdictions, including China, recognize the concept of double jeopardy and have introduced provisions which attempt to prevent over-punishment in the context of national proceedings.  Although there is no international standard to prevent double jeopardy in the context of antitrust enforcement of the same cartel by different jurisdictions, a number of competition authorities have taken the principle into account when imposing fines in international cartel cases, for example by excluding commerce or turnover attributable to certain sales or applying a reduction to the fine to take account of the fact that another jurisdiction has already imposed fines in respect of certain sales.     

We recognize that double jeopardy is an important consideration for clients which are implicated in international cartels. The Chinese antitrust agencies have not yet expressed how they intend to address the issue.  However, as they become more experienced in dealing with such cases, we hope that they will also become more aware of the issue and will clarify their approach to the issue of double jeopardy. 
Continue Reading The Principle of “Double Jeopardy” in International Cartel Investigations

By Susan Ning, Peng Heyue, Yang Yang, Qiu Weiqing, Sarah Eder, and Guo Shaoyi

Introduction

On 15 November 2011, Qihoo issued proceedings against Tencent in the Guangdong Higher Court, asserting that Tencent had abused its dominant position, marking the beginning of the first anti-monopoly case in the internet arena. Qihoo lost the first trial and appealed. On 16 October 2014, the Supreme Court handed down its final decision, rejecting Qihoo’s appeal and upholding the first-instance court judgment. This was the first anti-monopoly case heard by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s judgment elaborates detailed fundamental principles of anti-monopoly law, in particular in the context of abuse of dominance, which offers guidance and rules for future anti-monopoly litigation, especially those concerning abuse of dominance.
Continue Reading The Supreme Court Goes Online with Anti-Monopoly Law Principles：A Review of Qihoo v.s. Tencent Abuse of Market Dominance Case

By King & Wood  Mallesons’  Compliance Group

Through reviewing the performance and effectiveness of crisis management during recent food safety events, we were reminded of our comments relating to the Revised Amendment to the PRC Food Safety Law and importance of crisis management for multinational companies. Our reflections on recent events are focusing on the following topics: response time; response attitude; internal public relations (PR) team and official press conference.
Continue Reading Reflections on crisis management of recent food safety events

By King & Wood Mallesons’ International Dispute Resolution Group

On August 28, 2014, the China Air Transport Association (“CATA”), the International Air Transport Association (“IATA”), and the Shanghai International Arbitration Center (“SHIAC”) signed a cooperation agreement on international aviation arbitration in Shanghai. They announced that the Shanghai International Aviation Court of Arbitration (“SHIACA”) and the Shanghai International Aviation Arbitration Experts Committee (“SHIAAEC”) were officially established.

SHIACA is affiliated with SHIAC. After the Court of Arbitration of the Shanghai Free Trade Zone was initiated, SHIACA was regarded as another marvelous innovation by SHIAC and the world’s first arbitration agency specialized in aviation disputes. It means that international aviation arbitration system is officially established in Shanghai, which provides great convenience and advantages to domestic and foreign enterprises in the resolution of global disputes through SHIAC.
Continue Reading First International Aviation Court of Arbitration Initiated in Shanghai Free Trade Zone