May 22, 2012

China Implements New Evaluating Competitive Influence Rules

To evaluate the competitive impact of an anti-monopoly review on the mergers and acquisitions market (or concentration) and to guide business operators when notifying a concentration, the Ministry of Commerce of China introduced new measures for evaluating competitive influence.  The new rules have been in effect since 5 September 2011.

To evaluate the competitive impact of an anti-monopoly review on the mergers and acquisitions market (or concentration) and to guide business operators when notifying a concentration, the Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) of China released “Interim Measures on Evaluating Competitive Influence Caused by the Concentration of Business Operators” (Evaluating Rules).  The new rules have been in effect since 5 September 2011.  

The Evaluating Rules make it clear that when evaluating the concentration’s possible negative impact on competition, MOFCOM will first examine whether the concentration will lead to or enhance a certain operator’s or a few operators’ ability to eliminate or restrict competition.  If relevant business operators are not actual or potential competitors at the same level of trade in a market, review of the concentration will focus on whether the concentration would eliminate or restrict competition in upstream or downstream markets, or in a market that is related to the relevant market.

In particular, the following factors will be considered when determining whether or not a business operator would have, or could strengthen its, market power through the concentration:

  • The market share of the business operators in the relevant market and the competitive situation on the relevant market
  • How much the products or services of the concentrating business operators may be replaceable
  • The manufacturing capacity of the business operators that do not participate in the concentration, and to what extent their products or services may be replaceable by those produced or supplied by the concentrating parties
  • The capacity of the concentrating business operators to control the sales markets or the raw material procurement market
  • The ability of the purchasers, who purchase the products of the concentrating business operators, to switch suppliers
  • The financial and technical capacity of the concentrating business operators
  • The buyer power of downstream customers of the concentrating business operators
  • Other relevant factors

The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index and Concentration Ratio will also be applied in evaluating the concentration on a market.

MOFCOM must consider whether or not:

  • The concentration would increase the barriers for other business operators to enter a market
  • The concentration would integrate technological resources and capacity to offset any negative impact of the concentration
  • The concentration would improve economic efficiency, realise large-scale economic effects (economies of scale), decrease production costs, improve the diversification of products and result in a positive influence on the market
  • The concentration would suppress the competitiveness of the business operators that do not participate in the concentration, or would suppress competitiveness in upstream or downstream markets
  • The concentration would increase the competitiveness of the market as a whole

In addition, MOFCOM must take into account other factors such as public policy, economic efficiency and whether or not a concentrating business operator is near bankruptcy (i.e., a failing firm).

© 2012 McDermott Will & Emery

About the Author

Partner

Henry Chen is a partner of MWE China Law Offices based in Shanghai.

In addition to his international experience at Baker & McKenzie and Herbert Smith, Henry has practiced for more than 10 years with domestic law firms.  From 2002 to 2006, Henry pursued his education in the United States with the New York University School of Law and the University of Washington School of Law.

86 21 6105 0586

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.