2007/8/31　日本経済新聞 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　China Business Law Blog 中國商法博客

中国、独禁法を採択　全人代常務委
　競争促し非効率打破　外資の買収、制限の懸念

　中国の国会にあたる全国人民代表大会(全人代)の常務委員会は３０日、独占禁止法案を採択した。様々な分野で公正競争を徹底させることで、価格引き下げやサービス向上など消費者利益を拡大する狙い。中国では国有企業が長年、市場独占を許されてきた弊害がなお残っており、独禁法で社会主義の非効率な面を打破する。ただ、同法が外資の中国企業買収を制限する根拠となるとの懸念も一部に出ている。
　独禁法は、今春成立した私有財産権の保護を強化する物権法に続く重要な経済法で、市場経済体制の整備を加速させる目的がある。来年８月に施行する。中国ではこれまで「反不公正競争法」などでカルテルを禁止してきたが、処罰規定が不十分だった。独禁法は価格カルテルや、行政による不当介入を禁止。企業の合併・買収時には当局がシェアなどに基づき審査する。日本の公正取引委員会にあたる「反独占委員会」も新設する。市場独占の判断基準を「１社で５割、２社で３分の２、３社で４分の３以上のシェアを持つ」とした。
　そのため中国でシェアを伸ばす外資に影響が出そうだ。デジタルカメラでキャノン、ソニー、ニコンは合計で７割前後のシェアがあり、「販売が増えれば戦略の再検討が必要」との声もある。
　一方、当局者は「運用は産業政策との整合性も考慮する」と述べ、国有企業が圧倒的シェアを持つエネルギー業界や政策的な再編が進む自動車業界などは適用を除外する可能性も示した。
　外国企業による中国企業の合併・買収については、市場シェアとともに国家安全保障にかかわるかどうかも審査基準にすると定めた。
　外資が中国企業を買収するケースでシェアが高くなりすぎると判断すれば、中国当局が認可しないこともあり得る。地元企業の買収で中国事業を短期に拡大する戦略が困難になる可能性もある。ただ「基準の透明性が高まれば戦略を立てやすくなる」(中国の法務に詳しい森脇章弁護士)との指摘もある。
　中国では価格カルテルや入札談合はもちろん、地方政府が販売店に地元製品を優先販売するよう指導することは珍しくない。素材業界などでは当局が管轄する業界団体が価格を決め、外資も価格カルテルに加わらざるを得ないケースがある。独禁法が施行されればこうした商慣習は完全に違法となり、外資としては法を根拠にカルテルを拒否する選択も出てくる。

2007/8/30　Associated Press

China Passes Anti-Monopoly Law

National security checks that have held up U.S. and other foreign purchases of Chinese businesses became law on Thursday.

The anti-monopoly law marks the first time demands for such reviews have been enshrined in China's legal system, bringing together various rules and guidelines enacted as early as 2002. It takes effect next August.

"In addition to an anti-monopoly review, foreign investments that could affect national security must undergo a state security review," Huang Jianchu, head of the national legislature's economic law section, told reporters.

"I believe this is in keeping with the practices of other countries," he added.

Foreign governments have scrutinized attempted Chinese purchases of U.S. and other foreign assets for national security reasons.

Criticism from Congress in 2005 forced China's state-controlled CNOOC Ltd. to give up an $18.5 billion takeover bid for the U.S. oil company Unocal Corp. Lawmakers said the deal could jeopardize U.S. security.

In addition, after a controversial and ultimately unsuccessful attempt by a Dubai state-owned company in early 2006 to purchase operations at six U.S. ports, Congress took up legislation to strengthen U.S. reviews of foreign investment.

The bill was enacted by President Bush in late July, and provides for greater congressional oversight of the government body that reviews foreign investment for security implications. It also heightens scrutiny of investment by foreign state-owned companies.

U.S. business groups, while wary of deterring investment from overseas, generally welcomed the law in hopes that it will provide greater predictability to the process after the CNOOC and Dubai controversies.

Despite the national security provisions, the new Chinese law was welcomed by the American Chamber of Commerce in Beijing, which had been consulted in drafting it.

The law is a "defining moment in the development of China's legal system, which establishes a basic framework to build a fair, uniform, and national competition law system that benefits consumers by recognizing and preserving the incentives to compete," chamber chairman James Zimmerman said in a statement.

Specific industries subject to security reviews weren't named and many sectors remain off-limits altogether to foreign buyers.

The government last year also released a list of strategic sectors in which state monopolies would continue to be permitted. They include military-related manufacturing, power production and grids, petroleum, gas and petrochemicals, telecom manufacturing, coal, and civil aviation.

Beijing stepped up scrutiny of foreign takeovers after an uproar in 2005 over U.S. investment fund Carlyle Group's offer to buy a Chinese maker of construction equipment. Critics complained that such deals might threaten China's economic security, prompting the government to require makers of construction equipment to consult Beijing before selling large stakes to foreigners.

China received more than $60 billion in foreign investment last year, but foreign takeovers of Chinese companies are still unusual.

Chinese regulators also have held up a bid by European steelmaker ArcelorMittal to buy a mid-size Chinese competitor, Laiwu Steel. A Laiwu spokesman said in March that Chinese officials wanted more money and unspecified conditions to protect China's domestic steel industry.

Thirteen years in the making, China's anti-monopoly law seeks to promote fair competition and further open up the economy. It will take effect on Aug. 1, 2008.

The law bans monopolistic agreements and practices such as cartels and price-fixing but allows for monopolies that promote innovation and technological advance. Details were hazy and the full text of the law has not yet been released.

Analysts have said the law could help China protect its fledgling domestic industries from multinational competition, while others said it would curtail the power of state-owned enterprises.

Beijing officials have said the legislation would not discriminate between domestic and foreign companies. Huang said a committee under the State Council, China's Cabinet, would carry out anti-monopoly reviews, but didn't say who would be responsible for national security checks.

2007-08-30 ChinaDaily (Xinhua)

China adopts anti-monopoly law

The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPC), China's top legislature, on Thursday adopted the anti-monopoly law to ensure fair competition and regulate market order.

The law, which began to be drafted 13 years ago, will come into effect on August 1, 2008.

The law requires foreign purchases of Chinese companies to go through national security checks.

"As well as anti-monopoly checks stipulated by this law, foreign mergers and acquisitions of domestic companies or foreign capital investing in domestic companies' operations in other forms should go through national security checks according to relevant laws and regulations if the cases are related to the issue," it reads.

Foreign companies have begun to acquire major state-owned enterprises or companies with famous brands in recent years, arousing concerns about China's economic security.

China has already established a basic national security check system for foreign mergers and acquisitions.

Foreign investors should apply for approvals from the Ministry of Commerce (MOC) if their purchases of domestic companies affect national economic security, take place in key sectors or cause a transfer of the operating rights of famous domestic brands, according to a regulation issued by the MOC along with five other government organs last year.

Before that, only mergers and acquisitions worth more than US$100 million needed MOC checks and approvals.

The government will strengthen examination and supervision of foreign merger operations affecting major enterprises in sensitive sectors and issue policies to improve the system for admitting foreign-invested industries by the end of 2010, according to the National Development and Reform Commission.

The law, with eight chapters and 57 provisions, bans monopolistic agreements, such as cartels and other forms of collusion, and provides for investigation and prosecution of monopolistic practices, while protecting monopolistic agreements that promote innovation and technological advance.

The law prohibits monopolies from wielding their dominant status in market to curb competition, fix prices, enforce package sales, and refuse or enforce trade.

All companies seeking mergers or acquisitions would have to notify the anti-monopoly law enforcement departments if the actions meet the standard set by the State Council.

China planned to stipulate anti-monopoly law as early as in 1994.

Experts said China's socialist market economy has turned to be mature over more than one decade, and in current market circumstances, the introduction of an anti-monopoly law is imperative.

China Business Law Blog 中國商法博客 　August 24, 2007

Ramen Noodles, Price Fixing, and Beyond

After a month-long investigation into complaints of price fixing, the National Development and Reform Commission of China ("NDRC") delivered its verdict for the China Ramen Noodle Association ("Association")-guilty.

Investigation:
Governmental investigations revealed that the Association organized three meetings in a span of about 6 months (from 2006 to 2007). During the meetings, the Association and its members strategized on uniform price increases across the Ramen noodle industry in response to price hikes in raw materials, such as oil and flour. Of particular importance in the investigation was that the Association published minutes of its meetings in its industry magazine, and the news of price increase caused a panic among consumers who rushed to buy large quantities of Ramen noodles.

The NDRC acknowledged that higher production cost could lead to an increase in price in Ramen noodles, but price fixing by an industry association violates the Price Law of China, specifically Article 7, 14, and 17.

Current Law on Price Collusion:

Article 14 of the Price Law of P.R.China [full text of the law in English] provides:

Business operators must not act whatsoever in the following ways to effect abnormal price behaviors:
1. To work collaboratively with others to control market prices to great detriments to the lawful rights and interests of other business operators or consumers;

3. To fabricate and spread price rise information for pushing up the prices to excessively high level;

6. To disguisely raise or lower prices at irrational ranges by artificially raising or lowering grades of merchandises or services;
7. To seek exorbitant profits in violation of laws and regulations; and
8. To effect other illicit price behaviors that are forbidden by law or administrative decrees

Furthermore, the NDRC charged that the Association breached Article 4 of the Interim Provisions on Preventing the Acts of Price Monopoly (Text in Chinese; subscription required for English text) which states:

Business operators shall not fix, maintain, or modify prices through agreement, resolution, coordination or any other means of collusion.

Agency Order:
Since the NDRC found the Association guilty of violating the law (and price regulations), it ordered the Association to immediately "change its wrongful ways, make public notices to rectify negative impact of the price fixing, and to delete from its minutes contents regarding collective price increases---"

While at it, the NDRC sent a warning to other industry associations too, admonishing them to enhance their "sense of the rule of law."

Other Remedies:
Curiously enough, no consumers sued either the Association or Ramen noodle companies that colluded in price fixing. Article 41 of the Price Law provides a private right of action to injured consumers, to wit:

Whereas business operators have caused overpayment by consumers or other business operators in violation of price law, the part in excess of the due payment shall be returned. If damages are done, the business operators shall undertake to compensate for the losses.

If a suit were to be filed, a plaintiff could invoke the NDRC's administrative order as evidence of wrongdoing. Upon a showing of actual damages, victory in such a suit would be reachable. But lawsuits in China are costly, as are in the United States. Chinese consumers, however, could turn to class action as a way to pool their resources in order to seek their justice and redress for damages. See Class Action Litigation As a Means of Enacting Social Change in China, 75 UMKC L. Rev. 227 (2006); Class Action Litigation in China, 111 Harvard Law Review 1523 (1998).

In the present situation, class action does not seem to be a viable option for probably two reasons:
1) the damages are not great enough; 2) Chinese courts' unwillingness to hand out large amounts in damages.

日本経済新聞　2008/7/28 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　独禁法採択

中国独禁法　外資に警戒感
　欧米並みルール　来月施行　細則や運用 まだ不透明

　２ケタ成長の続く中国で、８月１日から独占禁止法が施行される。法律の準備に費やした１４年あまりの間に国内総生産(GDP)は世界４位に躍進。新ルールは進出する外国企業に大きな影響を及ぼしかねない。日本企業も対応に乗り出し始めたが、具体的な細則や運用実績のない現時点では不透明な面が多く、戸惑いの声も聞こえている。

　参加者「外資企業に不利に働く懸念はありませんか」
　弁護士「国有を含む全企業に平等適用する建前ですが、運用が始まってみないことには…」
　ここ数カ月、中国独禁法に関するセミナーが盛況だ。法律事務所などが東京や上海で相次ぎ開催。参加者からの質問も相次いでいる。経済産業省によると、日本企業の海外現地法人が稼いだ２００６年度の経常利益は9.6兆円。うち１割を中国が占め、5年間で３倍強に伸びた。日本企業にとって、利益成長を支える中国での法律対応は重要な課題に浮上している。
　新独禁法は�@カルテルの禁止�A市場で支配的な地位を占める事業者の行為規制�B合併など企業結合規制ーーが三本柱。欧米や日本の独禁法と基本は同じだが、特に外国企業への実際の適用がどうなるのかに最も関心が高い。
　「独占禁止法違反でマイクロソフトを調査する」。国営通信社・新華社系の上海証券報は６月中旬、知的財産権を管轄する中国当局が法施行後の提訴に向けて準備を始めていると報じた。中国が経済法制の整備を加速しているのには、独禁法や知財を振りかざす他国の影響で中国企業が損をしているとの思いもある。世界貿易機関(WTO)加盟時に反ダンビング税率で不利な扱いを受ける「非市場経済国」待遇を認めざるをえず、法制定を機にこの待遇から脱却したい考えもあるようだ。
　日本企業も対応を急いでいる。味の素は、法務担当者と現地弁護士が、中国の１３子会社の幹部や営業担当らを回り、新法に関するセミナーを実施し注意を促してきた。「現地杜員の間でかなり理解が進んだようだ」と藤谷幸司・法務部長は自信をみせる。
　資生堂は、取引先の小売店への発言でいわゆる「優越的地位の乱用」のように取られないよう意識すべき点を営業担当らに再確認中。ソニーも理解を深めるためのマニュアル作成を検討している。企業の間で「違法性がないか契約書を見直したり、契約期間を短くして機動的な対応に備えたりする例が増えている」（久田真吾弁護士)という。
　企業関係者が一様に気をもむのは、現時点で禁止行為に当たる基準など不明確な内容が多いごとだ。具体的な判定基準や審査の仕方を示すガイドライン、運用機関の権限配分などが順次定まるのは法律の施行後とみられる。
　例えば、カルテルとみなされる基準や適用除外の要件には行政の裁量余地が残る懸念がある。抱き合わせ販売など市場シェアの高い業者が付けた取引条件に正当性があるかどうかの判断基準も不明確。当局自体もガイドラインを制定する「独占禁止委員会」が未設立なうえ、運用は商務省など少なくとも３省庁に分かれたまま。企業振興を手掛ける省庁が公正な競争環境を整備できるのか不安もある。
　中国から反ダンビングで訴えられた日本企業の案件を数多く手掛ける曽我貴志弁護士は、仮に企業が結果を予測しにくいようなルール運用であれば、「日本企業は独禁法への抵触を恐れて、過剰に萎縮しかねない」と語す。独禁法の執行は世界的に厳罰化の流れが強まっており、日本企業も法的リスク軽減に向けた対策が急務となっている。

対外経済貿易大学教授 黄勇氏に聞く　海外M&Aも審査対象に

　社会主義市場経済を標榜する中国が独占禁止法を導入する狙いはどこにあるのか。法案策定チームに参加した対外経済貿易大学の黄勇教授に聞いた。

ー　社会主義体制と独禁法は矛盾しないのか。　
　「社会主義の象徴ともいえる国有企業であっても、市場競争を阻害すれば独禁法の処罰対象となる。また、政府が行政上の権利を乱用し、商品の自由な流通を阻害する"行政独占"を取り締まる規定も設けた。現状ではすべてを取り締まるのは難しいかもしれないが、明文化することで経済の"改革開放”を推し進めようという決意の表れだ。

ー　中国企業にはカルテルやトラストなどに対する遵法意識はあるのか。
　「テレビ、航空券、インスタントラーメンなど中国には業界団体が多い。こうした業界団体はおおっぴらに価格を談合している。これが正常な状態だと見なされており、カルテルを違法とする独禁法の考え方とは相いれない。施行当初は様々な問題が生じるかもしれないが、違法な行為と認識して徐々に考え方を改めるように啓蒙していく必要がある」

ー　取り締まり組織の体制やガイドラインはいつ公表されるのか。
　「我々法律家側は、日本のように独立した執行機関の設立を提案していたが、実現しなかった。国務院(内閣に相当)の傘下に調整機構として委員会を設置し、国家発展改革委員会や商務省など複数の組織が執行機関となる形になった。まだ委員会の内容やガイドラインなどは決まっていない」

ー　海外企業同士のM&Aにも影響はあるのか。
　「影響は出てくるだろう。今までは海外企業が中国企業を買収する場合に、中国市場でのシェアが問題とされていただけだ。独禁法の施行後は海外企業同士のM&Aでも、中国市場に一定の影響があれば審査の対象となる」

China Daily 2008-07-31

Anti-monopoly law to take effect tomorrow

The country's first anti-monopoly law, which was proposed 15 years ago and was not passed until last year, takes effect tomorrow.

The law, seen by some as the "constitution for the market economy" because of its importance in promoting an environment of fair competition, is regarded by investors and legal experts as a landmark law in China's transition to market economy and further opening up.

Foreign investors should take the law as a positive sign for their future investment in China, said Li Shuguang, a professor at China University of Politics and Law, who participated in drafting the law.

"This is a defining moment in the development of China's legal system," said James Zimmerman, chairman of the American Chamber of Commerce in China.

"The new anti-monopoly law establishes a basic framework to build a fair, uniform and national competition law system that benefits consumers by recognizing and preserving incentives to compete," said Zimmerman.

Li said that unlike before, when multinationals would hesitate over which ministry to approach when making investments, they now know which department to apply to.

"After the law takes effect, the decision-making process will become more transparent and will help to reduce investment risks," said Li.

Despite this progress and positive signs, experts think it is a law in transition and that much work needs to be done to enforce it efficiently.

Shi Jianzhong, another legal expert who also participated in drafting the law, said it is probably the shortest anti-trust law in the world since it only lays out certain principles.

"But we should not see it as a compromise," said Shi, who said that since China does not have much experience in anti-monopoly cases, it would be difficult to evaluate its influence on the market after it is put into practice if there are specific requirements at the very beginning.

The enforcement part of the law is still unclear, and that is another concern for investors. When passed last year, the law mentioned an anti-monopoly committee directly under the State Council but did not say who would enforce it.

According to sources, three government bodies - the Ministry of Commerce, the National Development and Reform Commission and the State Administration for Industry and Commerce - will enforce the law.

The anti-monopoly committee may coordinate enforcement but it is not a professional law enforcement body, according to Huang Yong, a professor of University of International Business and Economics.

Huang said this arrangement could challenge enforcement bodies since cases could be complex and beyond the management of one single ministry. Huang suggested these bodies work together.

"We sincerely hope the authorities will focus on modern economic principles and prevailing international practices when applying the new law," said Zimmerman.

"We will be observing with interest how the law is put into practice and look forward to continuing to support the government's moves to develop its competition-law system."

　　　　　−−−

Anti-monopoly law needs time to be effective

Dominating companies in China may face legal disputes after the country releases its anti-monopoly law tomorrow. But the real impact of the law is still limited as the new legal framework lacks regulations and guidelines for enforcement practices.

"The latest anti-trust law only describes the basic principles and it has more symbolic meaning than its real impact," said Yu Guofu, chief lawyer at Sam Partners Law Firm.

"I think the framework still needs six months to two years before it could be put to practice."

Dubbed as the "economic constitution", China's anti-monopoly law has raised great concerns as it regulates companies that often dominate the market.

Since last week, many Chinese news reports have been guessing which company will become the first defendant under the new legislative framework.

Top candidates among the list include Microsoft, Intel and Tetra Pak that own a majority market share in the country.

However, Huang Yong, member of the legislative working group of China's upcoming anti-trust law, said although companies who have a big market share are often more easily get involved in anti-trust disputes, they are not necessarily guilty for their dominant position.

"The anti-trust law does not oppose dominant market positions of any company but to against the abusive use of the dominant position," said Huang, who is also a professor from the law school of the University of International Business and Economics.

"From this perspective, companies will not be accused of anti-trust simply because they take up a major share of the market."

According to a previous survey by China's State Administration for Industry and Commerce, Microsoft takes up 95 percent of China's system software market. Tetra Pak, the Swedish food packaging company also enjoyed a 95 percent share of China's software drink packaging market. French car tire maker Michelin accounts for 70 percent of the market.

ーーー

2008-07-30 Xinhua

Chinese courts urged to study new, "complicated" anti-monopoly law

With China's anti-monopoly law taking effect on Friday, the country's Supreme People's Court on Wednesday urged courts at all levels to carefully study and abide by the new rules.

Anti-monopoly cases were highly professional and complicated in that economic and legal issues were often mixed, and they had significant impacts on companies and industries, said the court.

Some articles in the law were comparatively abstract and principled, and courts might encounter many new things when it came to specific cases. Courts at all levels should research the law carefully and prepare themselves well ahead of its use, it said.

The circular said the anti-monopoly law would play an important role in protecting intellectual property rights, and it also belonged to the same category as the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.

In April, China put monopoly and various other competition conflicts to the field of intellectual property rights issues.

The law reflects the country's latest efforts to regulate monopoly activities and ensure fair market competition.

The introduction of the law was the first step in establishing a comprehensive, nationwide competition regime, and further clarification concerning the law's application in certain key areas was expected.

These included rules against anti-competitive conduct, standards for administrative monopolies, enforcement mechanisms, and definition of abuses of intellectual property rights and penalties.

The law was passed in August last year.