May 25, 2012

U.S. and Chinese Antitrust Agencies to Sign Cooperation Agreement

On June 24, 2011, Assistant Attorney General Christine Varney announced that the U.S. antitrust enforcement agencies will be signing a cooperation agreement with their Chinese counterparts.  As a consequence, companies can now expect to see the Chinese authorities participating in coordinated “dawn raids” and related cooperative enforcement initiatives with the U.S. and EU antitrust enforcers in international cartel cases.

On June 24, 2011, Christine Varney, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), announced that the Federal Trade Commission and DOJ will sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with China’s three competition law enforcement agencies—the Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM), the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), and the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC).   The Memorandum is expected to be signed at the end of August 2011.

In making the announcement, Varney observed that cooperation with other competition agencies in emerging economies such as China can be a “first step” in addressing the concern that emerging economies will use competition laws “as a method to promote their trade interests.”   She also said that she expected the MOU with China will provide a sound basis for enhanced cooperation on a day-to-day basis between the signatory agencies, and minimize possible conflicts between U.S. and Chinese antitrust enforcement initiatives.

The U.S.-China MOU is expected to be modeled on the EU-U.S. “Agreement Regarding the Application of Competition Rules.”   It would therefore include a commitment to coordinate with each other on investigations and proceedings dealing with anticompetitive conduct (such as cartel investigations) and merger reviews of interest to both countries under their respective antitrust laws, including providing early notice to each other regarding investigations that implicate the other’s interests.  Like the U.S.-EU agreement, the U.S.-China accord will also include information exchange obligations.  Confidential information, the disclosure of which is prohibited by law in either jurisdiction, will not, however, be shared with the other country’s competition agencies. 

When the U.S.-China MOU comes into effect, it will be the latest in a growing number of cooperation agreements in the international antitrust enforcement community.  The U.S. enforcement agencies have long-standing cooperation agreements in place with a large number of sister antitrust enforcement agencies, including the European Commission, the German Cartel Office, the U.K. Office of Fair Trade, Japan’s Fair Trade Commission and South Africa’s Competition Commission.   The Chinese competition authorities likewise have already entered into cooperation arrangements with the European Commission, the U.K. Office of Fair Trade and other agencies.  Taken collectively, the growing number of these international accords is symptomatic of the “globalization” of antitrust, which has important implications for international competition policy and for multinational companies that conduct business in the jurisdictions concerned.

From a policy standpoint, these cooperation agreements and related technical consultations promote greater harmonization and convergence in the application of antitrust and competition laws around the world.  This benefits the business community in promoting legal certainty and mitigating the risk of being subjected to fundamentally inconsistent legal standards in the various jurisdictions where organizations conduct business.  These accords also benefit the business community in a more concrete sense—for example, by reducing the risk of the imposition of conflicting undertakings required for merger clearances, duplicative penalties in international cartel cases, and conflicting agendas and requirements for qualifying cartel “whistleblowers” under the various amnesty and leniency programs in “cooperating” jurisdictions.

On the other hand, one should not lose sight of the fact that the ultimate objective of these cooperation agreements is more effective—and aggressive—antitrust enforcement around the globe through coordinated enforcement efforts, especially in the area of international cartel enforcement.  As a consequence, companies can now expect to see the Chinese authorities participating in coordinated “dawn raids” and related cooperative enforcement initiatives with their U.S. and EU counterparts in international cartel cases, just as witnessed between the United States and the European Union, Canada, Japan and other countries following their cooperation agreements.  And while the U.S.-China MOU will be but the latest example of these international accords, it is particularly noteworthy in that the enforcement authorities with oversight over the world’s three largest economies—the United States, Europe and China—will now have a shared enforcement mission and mechanisms in place to carry that mission out on a coordinated basis.

About the Author

Partner

Joseph F. Winterscheid is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Washington, D.C., office.  Joe is head of the Firm’s global Antitrust & Competition Practice Group and his practice focuses on U.S. and international antitrust law.  From 1989 to 1994, Joe was partner-in-charge of an international law office in Brussels, where his practice focused on representing clients in competition matters before the European Commission and EU Member State competition authorities.

202 756 8061

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.