BRIC Merger Control - The New Regulatory Frontier
|
|
- Vincent Walsh
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 International In-house Counsel Journal Vol. 5, No. 19, Spring 2012, 1 BRIC Merger Control - The New Regulatory Frontier Emily Roche, Rio Tinto & Alasdair Balfour and Dr. Tobias Caspary, Fried Frank 1 I. Introduction Global M&A activity increasingly focuses on businesses with assets and/or sales in the BRIC countries - Brazil, Russia, India and China. From the end of May 2012, when the regime in Brazil becomes suspensory, each BRIC country will operate a mandatory pre-merger control regime requiring transactions that meet relevant thresholds to be notified to, and approved by, the local competition authority prior to closing. A new Russian regime came into force in January of this year, while the first functioning Indian regime came into force in June of last year. We have recently seen the Chinese competition authority intervening in international transactions, imposing conditions for clearance not imposed by other competition authorities. These developments create a new regulatory environment with additional hurdles for international transactions. This article summarises the new regimes, highlighting the recent changes and aspects of particular interest for international transactions, such as low or ambiguous notification thresholds, the risk of lengthy review periods and broader policy considerations potentially coming into play. The authors also draw comparisons with the existing regimes in the United States, Europe and elsewhere, as well as the 2002 Recommended Practices for Merger Notification Procedures of the International Competition Network (ICN). 2 II. Brazil Brazil has been operating a well-established merger control regime for many years, with approximately 8,000 mergers reviewed since Brazilian filings have been numerous (2011: 758 filings) because thresholds are easily triggered by transactions involving large international companies. Filings typically led to a lengthy review process by three authorities with overlapping competences the Secretariat of Economic Law (SDE), the Secretariat for Economic Monitoring (SEAE) and the Council for Economic Defence (CADE). However, this did not unduly concern transaction parties in most cases, because the regime has been non-suspensory and so allowed for closing of a transaction prior to conclusion of the investigation. The issue of most concern was the filing deadline, which required the parties to make a filing within fifteen business days from the signing of the first binding agreement related to the transaction Emily Roche is Senior Competition Counsel at Rio Tinto plc. Alasdair Balfour is a competition partner and Tobias Caspary is a competition associate with Fried Frank. The authors would like to thank José Alexandre Buaiz Neto of Pinheiro Neto Advogados, Natalia Korosteleva of Egorov Puginsky Afanasiev & Partners, Shashivansh Bahadur of Dua Associates and Barry Nigro of Fried Frank for their valuable comments regarding Brazil, Russia, India and the US respectively, and Fried Frank intern Valentins Hitrovs for his valuable assistance. The law is as stated at 7 March Recommended Practices for Merger Notification Procedures ( ICN Recommended Practices ), available at See also the 2005 Recommendation on Merger Review by the OECD, - C(2005)34, available at The main competition act, Law 8884/94 (BAL) was enacted in International In-house Counsel Journal ISSN print/issn online
2 2 Emily Roche, Alasdair Balfour & Dr. Tobias Caspary Potentially lengthy standstill period. The attention paid to the Brazilian regime will increase significantly from the end of May 2012, when Brazil s new merger control rules will come into effect. 4 The reform will bring a dramatic shift to a regime that prevents the parties from closing a notifiable transaction before clearance has been received from CADE. The standstill period under the new regime while CADE reviews a transaction can take up to 330 calendar days 5 : this is one of the longest review periods of all the 100+ jurisdictions operating a merger control regime worldwide. While CADE is expected to clear straightforward cases much more quickly, the potentially extremely long statutory review period creates concerns, particularly in light of the lengthy reviews which were typical under the nonsuspensory regime. 6 Regrettably, a Phase 1 contained in draft legislation was not included in the final bill, contrary to ICN principles. The authorities are discussing potential regulations to deal with this issue, but have issued no guidance yet. As a result, there may be considerable timetable uncertainty for transaction parties when a Brazilian filing is required. Although the 15 business day filing deadline will thankfully disappear under the new regime, parties would be well-advised to continue to make early filings, given the possibility for delay in clearance. Agency consolidation and new thresholds. In addition to introducing a suspensory regime, the new rules: (i) consolidate investigative powers within one of the former three Brazilian authorities (CADE); (ii) abolish the former 20% market share threshold; and (iii) introduce a domestic sales threshold for a second party to the transaction. A filing is triggered under the new regime only if one party s group sales in Brazil were at least R$400 million ($234 million) and any other party s group sales in Brazil were at least R$30 million ($17.5 million) in the previous year. These changes are welcome as they should render the review process more efficient and avoid the uncertainties stemming from market share thresholds. However, contrary to ICN principles, the target itself is not required to meet either of the sales thresholds; rather, the seller s group (as well as the purchaser s group) could meet the thresholds and a filing could be triggered on the basis of minimal target sales in Brazil. As such, it will remain the case that a transaction between two major conglomerates can easily require a Brazil filing even when the transaction is small and the target has little activity in Brazil. Clawback. A new area of potential concern is a clawback provision which allows CADE to review transactions that fall below the notification threshold within one year after transaction closing. Comparable risks exist in only a few other jurisdictions worldwide, including China, the United States and Canada. This creates potential uncertainty for the acquiring party. Sanctions. Absent a waiver of the standstill obligation, closing without necessary clearance from CADE can lead to fines of up to BRL60 million ($34 million). Under the previous regime, Brazilian authorities have frequently imposed fines for failure to comply with the filing deadline. It can be expected that CADE will equally vigorously enforce fines for breaching the standstill obligation. Broader policy considerations. Brazilian authorities have previously also considered broader policy issues in merger reviews, such as the effect of the transaction on employment, and have apparently been willing to approve the creation of national champions to compete globally, notwithstanding high Brazilian market shares, e.g. the creation of AmBev and Brasil Foods. However, as the review process at an institutional level has been consolidated with CADE, it remains to be seen whether or not broader policy considerations continue to influence decision-making Law No /11 of 30 November The maximum review period of 240 calendar days can be extended by up to 90 additional calendar days. On average, each review took 182 days to complete in 2009, improving to 147 days in 2011.
3 BRIC Merger Control 3 III. Russia From 2006 to 2011, Russia operated a relatively complex pre- and post-closing merger control system (i.e. certain transactions must be cleared prior to closing and others may close while clearance is pending). 7 In recent years, the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS) reviewed around 3,000 to 4,000 pre-merger filings annually. New thresholds for foreign transactions. Previous Russian filing thresholds could technically be met on the basis of worldwide assets or revenues alone, even if the parties had no nexus whatsoever to Russia, so parties to international transactions often had to consider whether a filing could be avoided under less clear rules on local presence. With effect from January 2012, Russia has adopted the Third Antimonopoly Reform Package. 8 Among other things 9, there are new rules for foreign transactions (where the target has no Russian subsidiaries): (i) only an acquisition of at least 50% of the voting rights in a non-russian target can potentially require a Russian filing (while for domestic transactions, certain minority investments remain notifiable); (ii) foreign transactions will require a Russian filing only if the target group achieved sales in Russia exceeding one billion roubles ($33.5 million) in the year preceding the transaction. These changes bring welcome clarity for the application of Russian merger control when the target group does not include a Russian subsidiary, although the sales threshold is relatively low in light of the size of the Russian economy and its expected growth in the coming years. New thresholds for domestic transactions. Domestic transactions (i.e. those where the target group includes a Russian subsidiary) require notification if: (i) the combined worldwide asset value of the parties exceeds 7 billion roubles ($235 million) or their combined worldwide sales exceed 10 billion roubles ($336 million) and (ii) the target group s worldwide asset value exceeds 250 million roubles ($8.4 million). The new rules clarify that the seller s assets and sales are not relevant to the 7 billion rouble asset threshold and 10 billion rouble sales threshold unless it retains joint control over the target. Note that these thresholds apply at a worldwide level. Therefore, if the target group includes a Russian subsidiary, a Russian filing may be required even if the target group has no Russian sales or assets. Standstill period and sanctions. Cases that raise no concerns are cleared within a 30 day Phase 1 review period. For complex cases, the FAS can open a Phase 2 investigation, which extends the review period by up to two additional months. These are speedy review periods and the FAS is not known for holding up transactions with lengthy reviews. An acquiring party which fails to report a notifiable transaction or does not provide requested information can be fined up to 500,000 roubles ($17,000) and the FAS has imposed a number of fines in the past. Broader policy considerations. Russian competition law specifically provides that FAS may take into account the enhancement of the ability of Russian companies to compete on the global market as a factor in its decision-making. This national champions reasoning apparently allowed the FAS to clear a number of transactions creating strong market positions in Russia, such as Rexam/Rostar and Uralkali/Silvinit. Special rules also apply to transactions involving financial institutions and national security industries Federal Law 135-FZ of July 26, 2006 on Protection of Competition (LPC) entered into force on October 26, 2006, available at: Further amendments include the abolishment of post-merger notifications for certain transactions involving financial institutions and the scope of information to be provided in the notification.
4 4 Emily Roche, Alasdair Balfour & Dr. Tobias Caspary IV. India India was the last of the BRIC countries to introduce a functioning merger control regime, when a new pre-closing competition regime entered into force in June Unusually for a suspensory regime, the Indian rules require a filing to be submitted within 30 days from the signing of a binding agreement in the case of an acquisition and, in the case of a merger, within 30 days from the board resolution approving the merger. For the time being, little can be said of the limited decisional practice of the Competition Commission of India (CCI), as it has thus far cleared unconditionally all transactions notified to it. Potentially lengthy standstill period. The statutory waiting period of up to 210 calendar days is long by international standards. It remains to be seen whether the CCI will deliver on its welcomed promise to clear up to 95% of cases within 30 calendar days and to review cases with serious concerns within 180 calendar days. There are promising signs: prompt and effective delivery of decisions has been identified as a key priority by the CCI s new chairman. Also, the first case under the new regime was cleared within 14 days. The subsequent 23 transactions notified to the CCI were cleared on average in two to six weeks, which is prompt by international standards. However, concerns remain that the CCI may not have sufficient resources to meet the mounting caseload, in particular if de minimis exemptions for filing expire (see below), which may lead to longer reviews and timetable uncertainty for transaction parties. Complex notification thresholds. The new merger control regime is complex and foresees multiple alternative filing thresholds (based on the parties worldwide and Indian sales and asset values and depending on whether the parties are competitors), some of which would frequently be met by substantial international transactions. The new regime was accompanied by a welcome de minimis rule (expected to be effective at least until 2016). According to the de minimis rule, no filing will be required if the book value of the target group s assets in India is less than Rs2.5 billion ($51 million) or the target group s sales in India are less than Rs7.5 billion ($153 million). Therefore, unless a target has substantial sales and assets in India, an Indian filing will not be required. There was another recent clarification that the regime does not apply to intra-group transactions or acquisitions of less than 25% of shares or voting rights. Special rules also apply to transactions involving the insurance and defence industries. Sanctions. Failure to notify a combination could attract a penalty of 1% of the total sales or assets of the combination whichever is higher. Closing prior to approval will render the transaction void. V. China China has been operating its current merger control regime for over three years. 11 The rules were modelled on those of other international regimes, notably the European Commission s. Since 2008, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) has issued several implementing measures and, in September 2011, its first set of guidelines on competitive assessment took effect, providing improved transparency into how it evaluates the competitive effects of transactions. Enforcement record. By February 2012, MOFCOM had reviewed more than 400 cases. It has so far issued only one prohibition, namely Coca Cola s attempted buyout of Chinese juice and beverage manufacturer Huiyuan in MOFCOM has imposed conditions in twelve further cases, including recently in February 2012 in connection with the creation of a joint venture between chemical companies Tiande Chemical and 10 Indian Competition Act 2002 (as amended); India also promulgated accompanying regulations, all available at: 11 The Anti-Monopoly Law of August 30, 2007 entered into force on August 1, 2008.
5 BRIC Merger Control 5 Henkel Hong Kong. 12 Tiande/Henkel is the second decision on a proposed joint venture, thus confirming the applicability of the Chinese merger rules to joint ventures. 13 Eleven out of these twelve conditionally cleared cases have been foreignto-foreign transactions. The remaining conditionally cleared case, like the prohibited Coca Cola case, was a foreign acquisition of a Chinese company. MOFCOM has not to date intervened in any transactions between Chinese companies. However, with GE/Shenhua being the first conditional clearance involving a state-owned enterprise (SOE) 14, MOFCOM has demonstrated that it is willing to intervene in cases involving SOEs. Despite operating under relatively new rules, MOFCOM has shown confidence in taking decisions that do not always follow those of its US and European counterparts. For instance, it has not shied away from imposing conditions on foreign-to-foreign transaction which have previously been unconditionally cleared in the US and Europe. Remedies were imposed in 2011 to clear Seagate s acquisition of Samsung s hard disk drive business. Seagate/Samsung had been cleared unconditionally in Europe and the United States. Another example is MOFCOM s ongoing review of Google/Motorola, during which MOFCOM has stressed the autonomy of the Chinese merger review process. MOFCOM also appears to favour behavioural remedies more than most other competition authorities, which typically favour structural remedies, generally business divestments. For example, Seagate was required to form an independent Samsung production line and an independent subsidiary for selling Samsung hard disks and to set Samsung prices independently of Seagate. Seagate was also required to increase Samsung production capacity and to invest at least $800 million in research and development for three years. Also, in Uralkali/Silvinit, MOFCOM s conditions for clearance included a requirement that the merged entity maintain existing potassium chloride quality and supply arrangements in China. Broader policy considerations. The Chinese rules explicitly state that MOFCOM should take into account the potential impact of a transaction on national economic development in its decision-making process. MOFCOM also generally consults within the Chinese Government regarding merger reviews. Accordingly, broader political and industrial concerns can be taken into account, although all the published decisions to date have been reasoned on competition grounds. This inter-agency consulting may partly explain why MOFCOM has reached a different conclusion to other competition authorities in relation to some transactions, as well as the longer review period on average than in other countries for transactions that do not raise potential competition concerns. Lengthy standstill period. On paper, the Chinese Phase 1 review period of 30 calendar days appears to be in line with international standards. However, in practice most transactions proceed to a Phase 2 review even if the transaction raises no potential competition issues in China (e.g. transactions between companies which are not competitors). Phase 2 can last up to an additional 90 calendar days, although we understand that many transactions are cleared early in Phase 2. In exceptional cases, the Phase 2 review period can be extended for another 60 calendar days. Accordingly, it is not uncommon for MOFCOM to be the last regulator to clear a transaction. We understand that MOFCOM is currently developing a summary procedure, or fast 12 Tiande is one of the largest global suppliers of an essential input for the production of chemicals by the notified joint venture and other manufacturers. The transaction was cleared subject to Tiande s commitment to supply the joint venture s competitors on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. 13 In November 2011 MOFCOM conditionally cleared the joint venture between General Electric (GE) and state-owned coal supplier Shenhua Corp. 14 The case was also the first clearance by MOFCOM of the establishment of a joint venture.
6 6 Emily Roche, Alasdair Balfour & Dr. Tobias Caspary track, for relatively easy and straightforward cases in an effort to shorten the review period, which would be a welcome development. Notification thresholds. A Chinese filing is required if: (i) the combined worldwide sales of the transaction parties exceed RMB 10 billion ($1.6 billion); and (ii) Chinese sales of each of at least two parties exceed RMB 400 million ($63.5 million). Alternatively, a Chinese filing is also required if: (i) combined Chinese sales of the transaction parties exceed RMB 2 billion ($317.5 million); and (ii) Chinese sales of each of at least two parties exceed RMB 400 million ($ 63.5 million). These thresholds are sensible in the context of a single acquiring party - they require both parties to have substantial Chinese activities. However, they have inherited the defect in the European Commission system that requires a filing when jointly controlling parents with relevant Chinese sales acquire a target group or set up a joint venture that has little or even no activities in China. Clawback. The Chinese rules also contain a clawback provision which allows MOFCOM to review transactions that fall below the notification threshold for an unlimited period after closing of a transaction (albeit we are not aware that MOFCOM has yet done so). As is the case with respect to Brazil, Canada and the United States, this creates potential uncertainty for the acquiring party. The US agencies have used their equivalent powers increasingly recently and in Canada the Competition Tribunal is currently considering a case that had not met the filing thresholds. 15 It remains to be seen whether MOFCOM will follow suit. Sanctions. In December 2011, MOFCOM officially issued rules on failure to file a notifiable transaction or closing a transaction before MOFCOM clearance has been given. The rule came into effect on February 1, MOFCOM can issue fines of up to RNB 500,000 ($79,000) and/or make an order requiring the parties to take measures to restore the situation to that existing prior to the transaction. Companies are also encouraged to whistleblow if they are aware of transactions that have not been notified to MOFCOM. Failure to notify MOFCOM when required, or closing without a necessary clearance, is therefore a risk for buyers, but also sellers, who may find themselves required to take back ownership of a business they have sold. VI. Conclusion There is no doubt that merger clearances in the BRIC countries will rightly play an increasingly important role in international transactions, alongside those in the US, Europe and elsewhere. Transaction parties seek clear and sensible thresholds to determine whether filings are required and speedy and predictable investigations, with a consistent approach by multiple competition authorities. These objectives are reflected in the ICN merger control principles. There have been many welcome developments in the BRIC merger control regimes in recent years. However, it remains the case that the thresholds for filings in a number of BRIC countries are either ambiguous or too easily met by international transactions with limited local impact (e.g. where the thresholds can be met by the seller rather than the target). In addition, the review periods are potentially lengthy in several of the BRIC countries (even where a transaction does not raise substantive competition law concerns), which creates transaction timetable uncertainty and can lead to delayed closing. We have also seen that broader policy considerations appear to be taken into account more readily in the decision-making process in some of the BRIC countries than, for example, in the United States and Europe, where more limited powers exist regarding 15 Commissioner of Competition v. CCS Corporation, Complete Environmental Inc., Babkirk Land Services Inc., Karen Louise Baker, Ronald John Baker, Kenneth Scott Watson, Randy John Wolsey, and Thomas Craig Wolsey (CT ).
7 BRIC Merger Control 7 issues such as national security or plurality of the media. This perhaps reflects the different macro-economic policies of the various Governments in question and may result in either a more interventionist or a more lenient approach in BRIC countries, each of which could be of concern to businesses in terms of predictability and international consistency. Transaction parties should therefore no longer assume that the increasingly harmonised approach of the US and European competition authorities will set the tone and the timetable - which all other authorities follow. At an early stage of transaction planning, parties should identify where filings are required, the likely approach of the various regulators and the timetable implications. With early planning and a coordinated approach to the different filing jurisdictions, filings can be made and clearances ideally received more quickly, allowing earlier closing.
MOFCOM S Approach to Merger Remedies: Distinctions from Other Competition Authorities
MOFCOM S Approach to Merger Remedies: Distinctions from Other Competition Authorities Michael Han & Zhaofeng Zhou Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Beijing Copyright 2012 Competition Policy International,
More informationANTITRUST AND COMPETITION LAWS
ANTITRUST AND COMPETITION LAWS Legal framework The basic law governing antitrust and competition issues in the PRC is the Anti-Monopoly Law ( AML ), which entered force on August 1, 2008. The AML is China
More informationHow to handle the intrusive merger control process in China?
François Renard (Beijing, February 2013) How to handle the intrusive merger control process in China? Allen & Overy 2013 1 Since August 2008 Notifiable concentrations must be filed to and approved by central
More informationFOCUSING ON PRIVATE EQUITY: GLOBAL MERGER CONTROL IMPLICATIONS
FOCUSING ON PRIVATE EQUITY: GLOBAL MERGER CONTROL IMPLICATIONS BY DEIDRE JOHNSON, SIMONE WATERBURY, ADAM ECKART, KEVIN WALSH & DEREK YEE 1 1 Deidre Johnson, Simone Waterbury, Adam Eckart, Kevin Walsh &
More informationCLIENT PUBLICATION. China s New Anti-Monopoly Law Comes into Effect M&A Deals Subject to New Filing Thresholds
SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP CLIENT PUBLICATION Mergers & Acquisitions 2008 China s New Anti-Monopoly Law Comes into Effect M&A Deals Subject to New Filing Thresholds On August 1, 2008, the new Anti-Monopoly
More informationIFLR MERGER CONTROL SURVEY Guest edited by Nicole Kar. Merger Control Survey international financial law review
Merger Control Survey 2014 IFLR international financial law review MERGER CONTROL SURVEY 2014 Guest edited by Nicole Kar RISK RATING MAP Asia Pacific: risk rating map Key Indicates a regime in which regulation
More informationChina's New Anti-Monopoly Law:
China's New Anti-Monopoly Law: Navigating Your Deal Through China's Antitrust Mist Hannah Ha Partner JSM +852 2843 4378 hannah.ha@mayerbrownjsm.com 18 September 2008 Mayer Brown is a global legal services
More informationINTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION ANTITRUST COMMITTEE WORKING GROUP ON INDIA'S PROPOSED MANDATORY MERGER NOTIFICATION REGIME
INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION ANTITRUST COMMITTEE WORKING GROUP ON INDIA'S PROPOSED MANDATORY MERGER NOTIFICATION REGIME SUBMISSION REGARDING THE PROPOSED INDIAN MERGER NOTIFICATION REGIME AND IMPLEMENTING
More informationEuropean Union Giorgio Motta and Thorsten Goetz, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom
MERGER CONTROL European Union Giorgio Motta and Thorsten Goetz, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom SECTION 1: OVERVIEW 1.1 Please provide a brief overview of your jurisdiction s merger control legislative
More informationDoing Business in Asia: Merger Control
Doing Business in Asia: Merger Control Mark Katz, Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP March 2, 2015 2015 Asia Forum ABA Section of International Law Tokyo, Japan PANEL Kala Anandarajah - Rajah & Tann Singapore
More informationINTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION ANTITRUST COMMITTEE WORKING GROUP ON INDIA'S PROPOSED MANDATORY MERGER NOTIFICATION REGIME
INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION ANTITRUST COMMITTEE WORKING GROUP ON INDIA'S PROPOSED MANDATORY MERGER NOTIFICATION REGIME SUBMISSION REGARDING THE INDIAN MERGER NOTIFICATION REGIME AND NECESSARY IMPLEMENTING
More informationWe have a number of issues with regard to the jurisdictional application of the EU Merger Regulation to real estate transactions.
Concerns related to the EU Merger Regulation (European Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004) as applied to real estate investments and co-investments by certain institutional investors We have a number
More informationUnited States: Merger Control
The In-House Lawyer: Comparative Guides United States: Merger Control inhouselawyer.co.uk/index.php/practice-areas/merger-control/united-states-merger-control/ 9/12/2016 This country-specific Q&A provides
More informationPre-Merger Notification Guide. POLAND Wardynski & Partners
Pre-Merger Notification Guide POLAND Wardynski & Partners CONTACT INFORMATION Sabina Famirska and Andrzej Madała Wardynski & Partners Aleje Ujazdowskie 10 Warsaw 00-478, Poland 48.22.437.82.00 sabina.famirska@wardynski.com.pl
More informationPre-Merger Notification Survey. FINLAND Roschier, Attorneys Ltd.
Pre-Merger Notification Survey FINLAND Roschier, Attorneys Ltd. CONTACT INFORMATION Christian Wik Roschier, Attorneys Ltd. Finland Telephone: 358.20.506.6000 Email: christian.wik@roschier.com 1. Is there
More informationTO FILE OR NOT TO FILE: THE TREATMENT OF OFFSHORE JOINT VENTURES UNDER THE EU AND CHINA S MERGER CONTROL REGIMES
TO FILE OR NOT TO FILE: THE TREATMENT OF OFFSHORE JOINT VENTURES UNDER THE EU AND CHINA S MERGER CONTROL REGIMES Angela Huyue Zhang Herbert Smith LLP & Mark Jephcott Herbert Smith LLP Copyright 2011 Competition
More informationPre-Merger Notification Manual
2017 Pre-Merger Notification Manual A practical guide to understanding merger regimes in multiple jurisdictions. UPDATED 2017 EDITION INTRODUCTION This TerraLex Pre-Merger Notification Manual has been
More informationPre-Merger Notification Guide. FINLAND Roschier, Attorneys Ltd.
Pre-Merger Notification Guide FINLAND Roschier, Attorneys Ltd. CONTACT INFORMATION Christian Wik Roschier, Attorneys Ltd. Keskuskatu 7 A 00100 Helsinki, Finland 358.20.506.6000 christian.wik@roschier.com
More informationPaul Hastings Newsletter for Investing & Operating in the People s Republic of China
CHINA MATTERS Paul Hastings Newsletter for Investing & Operating in the People s Republic of China August 2008 China s New Merger Notification Rules: What Does This Mean to International Investors? The
More informationPre-Merger Notification Guide. BRAZIL Demarest e Almeida Advogados
Pre-Merger Notification Guide BRAZIL Demarest e Almeida Advogados CONTACT INFORMATION Mário Roberto Villanova Nogueira Bruno De Luca Drago Demarest e Almeida Advogados Av: Pedroso de Moraes, 1201 05419-001
More informationFocus on. Competition Antitrust Foreign Investment. Investment Canada and Competition Law 2012 in Review and Outlook for 2013 I.
Focus on Competition Antitrust Foreign Investment JANUARY 2013 1 Investment Canada and Competition Law 2012 in Review and 2013 Outlook 2 Contact Us Investment Canada and Competition Law 2012 in Review
More informationBelow we provide a comparative outline of the principal changes related to: 5
THIRD ANTIMONOPOLY PACKAGE IN RUSSIA March 19, 2012 To Our Clients and Friends: In January, Federal Law No. 401-FZ on Amendments to the Federal Law on Protection of Competition 1 and Certain Legislative
More informationThe Asia-Pacific Antitrust Review
GlobaL Competition Review The international journal of competition policy and regulation The Asia-Pacific Antitrust Review A Global Competition Review special report published in association with: 2008
More informationThe Importance of Global Merger Filing Coordination
The Importance of Global Merger Filing Coordination Adrian L. Steel, Jr. Dr. Jens Peter Schmidt Partner Washington, DC Partner Brussels +1 202 263 3237 +32 2 502 5517 asteel@mayerbrown.com jpschmidt@mayerbrown.com
More informationPre-Merger Notification Survey. INDIA Amarchand & Mangaldas & Suresh A. Shroff & Co
Pre-Merger Notification Survey INDIA Amarchand & Mangaldas & Suresh A. Shroff & Co CONTACT INFORMATION Pallavi Shroff Amarchand & Mangaldas & Suresh A. Shroff & Co India Telephone: 91.11.26920500 Email:
More informationChinese Antitrust Law: First Five Years. Nathan Bush Singapore/Beijing April 2013
Chinese Antitrust Law: First Five Years Nathan Bush Singapore/Beijing nbush@omm.com April 2013 PRC Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) Effective August 1, 2008 China s first comprehensive competition law AML prohibits
More informationEU-China competition week 24 to 28 October 2016 Day 1. Ronan Scanlan Assistant Director, Mergers
EU-China competition week 24 to 28 October 2016 Day 1 Ronan Scanlan Assistant Director, Mergers 1 Session I Remedies: The Use of Upfront Buyers in Divestiture Remedies 2 Overview (1) What do we mean by
More informationMerger GuidelinesMerger Guidelines
Merger Guidelines Merger GuidelinesMerger Guidelines Danish Competition and Consumer Authority Carl Jacobsens Vej 35 2500 Valby Tlf. +45 41 71 50 00 E-mail: kfst@kfst.dk Online ISBN: 978-87-7029-542-0
More informationICN RECOMMENDED PRACTICES FOR MERGER NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURES
ICN RECOMMENDED PRACTICES FOR MERGER NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURES I. Definition of a Merger Transaction A. Jurisdictions should consider carefully the types of transactions that are included within
More informationHONG KONG COMPETITION ORDINANCE JANUARY 2015
BRIEFING HONG KONG COMPETITION ORDINANCE JANUARY 2015 THE ORDINANCE WAS PASSED IN JUNE 2012, BUT WAS ONLY PARTIALLY IMPLEMENTED IN JANUARY 2013 SINCE THEN THE HONG KONG COMPETITION COMMISSION AND THE COMPETITION
More informationWalmart s acquisition of Chinese B2C online retail platform and potential ramifications for future deals in China s expanding retail sector
Walmart's acquisition of Chinese B2C online retail platform and potential ramifications for future deals in China s expanding retail sector 1 Briefing note November 2012 Walmart s acquisition of Chinese
More informationChina Antitrust Moves Up a Gear
3 Legal Update Antitrust & Competition Mainland China 14 November 2011 China Antitrust Moves Up a Gear The third anniversary of the commencement of China s Anti-Monopoly Law ( AML ) passed in August of
More informationPre-Merger Notification South Africa
Pre-Merger Notification South Africa Is there a regulatory regime applicable to mergers and similar transactions? Yes. The relevant legislation is the Competition Act 89 of 1998 (the Act) and the regulations
More informationANTITRUST COMMITTEE OF THE INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION
ANTITRUST COMMITTEE OF THE INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION IBA MERGERS WORKING GROUP COMMENTS ON THE FRENCH COMPETITION AUTHORITY PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON THE MODERNISATION AND THE SIMPLIFICATION OF MERGER
More informationCOMMENTARY JONES DAY. 1 Reportedly, the Amended Act is expected to become enforceable on January 1, 2010, at the earliest.
September 2009 JONES DAY COMMENTARY Amendment of the Anti-Monopoly Act of Japan and its Impact on Mergers and Acquisitions On June 3, 2009, the Japanese Diet enacted a bill to amend the Act on Prohibition
More informationWorking Party No. 3 on Co-operation and Enforcement
Unclassified DAF/COMP/WP3(2016)4/ANN DAF/COMP/WP3(2016)4/ANN Unclassified Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 27-Jul-2016
More informationPre-Merger Notification Survey. JORDAN Ali Sharif Zu bi Advocates & Legal Consultants
Pre-Merger Notification Survey JORDAN Ali Sharif Zu bi Advocates & Legal Consultants CONTACT INFORMATION Lubna Hawamdeh Ali Sharif Zu bi Advocates & Legal Consultants Jordan Telephone: Email: Lubna.hawamdeh@zubilaw.com
More informationThe EU Merger Regulation. An overview of the European merger control rules
The EU Merger Regulation An overview of the European merger control rules January 08 Contents. Introduction. Concentrations 3 3. EU dimension 4. Pre notification allocation of cases between the Commission
More informationCompetition Commission of Mauritius Guidelines: GENERAL PROVISIONS
CCM 7 Competition Commission of Mauritius Guidelines: GENERAL PROVISIONS November 2009 Competition Commission of Mauritius 2009 Guidelines General provisions 2 1. Introduction... 3 Guidelines... 3 Guidelines
More informationSUMMARY. Error! Unknown document property name. Page 1
EUROPEAN COMPETITION LAWYERS FORUM RESPONSE TO EUROPEAN COMMISSION PROPOSALS TO AMEND THE MERGER REGULATION IN RELATION TO MINORITY SHAREHOLDINGS AND CASE REFERRALS I. INTRODUCTION 1. The European Competition
More informationPre-Merger Notification India
Updated: August 2006 Copyright Lex Mundi Ltd. 2006 Pre-Merger Notification India Is there a regulatory regime applicable to mergers and similar transactions? Mergers and acquisitions ( combinations ) are
More informationRegulatory risks during M&A projects: A comparison of European, UK and US frameworks
International In-house Counsel Journal Vol. 1, No. 4, Summer 2008, 552 559 Regulatory risks during M&A projects: A comparison of European, UK and US frameworks NIKOLAOS P. DOUNIS Senior Internal Auditor,
More informationCPI Antitrust Chronicle July 2011 (2)
CPI Antitrust Chronicle July 2011 (2) Corporate Restructurings, Debt-for- Equity Swaps: Competition Law Perspectives Paolo Palmigiano & Joshua Sherer Lloyds Banking Group www.competitionpolicyinternational.com
More informationAntitrust & Competition
Antitrust & Competition Mayer Brown JSM s multi-disciplinary Antitrust & Competition team offers a seamless, coordinated service throughout the Asia Pacific region, and has the benefit of extensive regional
More informationPre-Merger Notification Guide. CZECH REPUBLIC PRK Partners s.r.o. advokátní kancelár
Pre-Merger Notification Guide CZECH REPUBLIC PRK Partners s.r.o. advokátní kancelár CONTACT INFORMATION Radan Kubr and Kateřina Hájková PRK Partners s.r.o. advokátní kancelár Jáchymova 2 110 00 Prague
More informationMerger Control Notification: Penalties for Failure to Notify
Merger Control Notification: Penalties for Failure to Notify With the recent imposition of substantial civil penalties on MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings (US$720,000) and on Barry Diller (US$480,000) for
More informationChina Establishes its Security Review Mechanisms for Inbound M&A Transactions
June 2011 China Establishes its Security Review Mechanisms for Inbound M&A Transactions BY DAVID LIVDAHL & JENNY SHENG On February 3, 2011, the PRC State Council (the State Council ) promulgated the long
More informationMerger Control Under China s Anti-Monopoly Law
!! Student Note Merger Control Under China s Anti-Monopoly Law SHAOPING CHEN Table of Contents Introduction... 179 I. History and Overview of China s Merger Control Regime...... 180 A. The Pre-AML Merger
More informationPre-Merger Notification Survey. LATVIA Klavins & Slaidins LAWIN
Pre-Merger Notification Survey LATVIA Klavins & Slaidins LAWIN CONTACT INFORMATION Martins Gailis and Liga Hartmane Klavins & Slaidins LAWIN Latvia Telephone: 371.6781.4848 Email: martins.gailis@lawin.lv
More informationPre-Merger Notification Survey. AUSTRIA Cerha Hempel Spiegelfeld Hlawati, Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwalten
Pre-Merger Notification Survey AUSTRIA Cerha Hempel Spiegelfeld Hlawati, Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwalten CONTACT INFORMATION Dr. Bernhard Kofler-Senoner Cerha Hempel Spiegelfeld Hlawati, Partnerschaft
More informationCompetition Act Regulates Mergers & Acquisitions by Foreign and Canadian Companies
Competition Act Regulates Mergers & Acquisitions by Foreign and Canadian Companies By Janny Cho February 28, 2018 What is the Competition Act? The Competition Act ( CA ) is a federal statute administered
More informationPre-Merger Notification Latvia
Pre-Merger Notification Latvia Is there a regulatory regime applicable to mergers and similar transactions? Yes. Latvian merger control is regulated by the Competition Law (Konkurences likums) of 4 October
More informationPRC Trademark Law Implementing Regulations Issued. May 6, Draft
SIPS PRC Trademark Law Implementing Regulations Issued May 6, 2014 - Draft On April 29, 2014, the State Council issued amended Implementing Regulations to the Trademark Law (the New IRs ) as a companion
More informationEY Corporate Law Alert
EY Corporate Law Alert Overview Chinese legislators hope to formulate a fundamental new law on foreign investment that complies with the economic development and realities of China. The new law adapts
More informationRESPONSE TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION S PUBLIC CONSULTATION: EU MERGER CONTROL DRAFT REVISION OF SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE AND MERGER IMPLEMENTING REGULATION
RESPONSE TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION S PUBLIC CONSULTATION: EU MERGER CONTROL DRAFT REVISION OF SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE AND MERGER IMPLEMENTING REGULATION 19 JUNE 2013 EU MERGER CONTROL DRAFT REVISION OF SIMPLIFIED
More informationIndia's New Merger Control Regime: Final Regulations Published
May 2011 India's New Merger Control Regime: Final Regulations Published The Competition Commission of India ("CCI") has published finalised regulations (the "Regulations") governing the new merger regime
More informationEnhanced Antitrust Enforcement Expected in China as Long-awaited Anti-Monopoly Implementing Rules Finalised
3 Legal Update Antitrust & Competition Hong Kong Mainland China 14 January 2011 Enhanced Antitrust Enforcement Expected in China as Long-awaited Anti-Monopoly Implementing Rules Finalised China looks set
More informationThe UK's new competition regime
The UK's new competition regime By Trudy Feaster-Gee, Jeremy Scholes and Shaukat Ali (4 April 2014) Important changes to the UK's competition law regime came into effect on 1 April 2014. This article highlights
More informationEXTENSION OF SCOPE OF EUMR TO INCLUDE MINORITY INTERESTS AND REFORM OF THE REFERRAL SYSTEM
Consultation date: 20.06.2013 Response date: 11.09.2013 D021\087\LN7761495.2 A. Introduction RESPONSE TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION'S CONSULTATION ON EU MERGER CONTROL ("TOWARDS MORE EFFECTIVE EU MERGER CONTROL"):
More informationPre-Merger Notification Guide. TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Hamel-Smith
Pre-Merger Notification Guide TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Hamel-Smith CONTACT INFORMATION M. Glenn Hamel-Smith and Colin Sabga Hamel-Smith Eleven Albion, Cor Dere & Albion Street Port of Spain, Trinidad & Tobago
More informationPRIVATE EQUITY AND MERGER CONTROL THE RULES OF THE GAME ARE CHANGING
PRIVATE EQUITY AND MERGER CONTROL THE RULES OF THE GAME ARE CHANGING BY PONTUS LINDFELT & MATTEO GIANGASPERO 1 1 Pontus Lindfelt, Partner, and Matteo Giangaspero, Associate in the EU competition law practice
More informationEXTENSION OF SCOPE OF EUMR TO INCLUDE MINORITY INTERESTS AND REFORM OF THE REFERRAL SYSTEM
Consultation date: 09.07.2014 Response date: 03.09.2014 D021\091\LN8011443.2 A. Introduction RESPONSE TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION'S CONSULTATION ON EU MERGER CONTROL ("TOWARDS MORE EFFECTIVE EU MERGER CONTROL"):
More informationRussia Takeover Guide
Russia Takeover Guide Contact Vassily Rudomino VRudomino@alrud.com Contents Page INTRODUCTION 1 THE REGULATION OF TAKEOVERS 1 ORDINARY AND PRIVELLEGED SHARES, CONVERTIBLE SECURITIES 1 ACQUISITION OF MORE
More informationChina s New Anti-Monopoly Law: Principles and Challenges
China s New Anti-Monopoly Law: Principles and Challenges Background: On 30 August 2007, the Standing Committee of the National People s Congress adopted the Anti- Monopoly Law of the People s Republic
More informationTop Ten Things Investors Should Know About M&As in Latin America
Top Ten Things Investors Should Know About M&As in Latin America Dec 01, 2011 Top Ten By Jinna Pastrana, Latin America Consultant, Association of Corporate Counsel The steady rise in worldwide merger and
More informationSuspensory Effects of Merger Notifications and Gun Jumping - Note by Hungary
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development DAF/COMP/WD(2018)82 DIRECTORATE FOR FINANCIAL AND ENTERPRISE AFFAIRS COMPETITION COMMITTEE English - Or. English 2 November 2018 Suspensory Effects
More informationUS MERGER CONTROL MARCH 1, 2003
US MERGER CONTROL KENNETH R. LOGAN AND JACK D ANGELO SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP MARCH 1, 2003 Antitrust planning typically is a central part of every transaction and public takeover bids are no exception.
More informationCPI Antitrust Chronicle Dec 2014 (1)
CPI Antitrust Chronicle Dec 2014 (1) The Real Threat Posed by Global Merger Enforcement Divergence Adam J. Di Vincenzo Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP www.competitionpolicyinternational.com Competition Policy
More informationTransatlantic Trends in Private M&A Transactions
Transatlantic Trends in Private M&A Transactions Harold Birnbaum Will Pearce Pritesh Shah Nicholas Spearing William Tong November 29, 2018 Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP Presenters Harold Birnbaum Corporate/M&A
More informationInternational Joint Ventures: What Antitrust Lawyers Need to Know Brazil and Mexico
International Joint Ventures: What Antitrust Lawyers Need to Know Brazil and Mexico Friday, May 23, 2013 12:00 pm-1:15 pm EST Presented By: The International Committee The Joint Conduct Committee The Corporate
More informationInternational Joint Ventures in Latin America
International Joint Ventures in Latin America Ana Paula Martinez and Mariana Tavares de Araujo Levy & Salomão Advogados, São Paulo Introduction The globalisation of markets has led to the internationalisation
More informationMERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS OF LISTED AND UNLISTED COMPANIES IN CHINA
MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS OF LISTED AND UNLISTED COMPANIES IN CHINA by Peter KOH (with the research assistance of Zheng Haotian, Vicky Liu Yiwei, Mary Zhu Miaoli and Gloria Yan Liang) 1 Provisions regarding
More informationREVIEW OF DOUBLE TAXATION TREATIES AND DOUBLE CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENTS
ICAEW TAX FACULTY REPRESENTATION REVIEW OF DOUBLE TAXATION TREATIES AND DOUBLE CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENTS 2011-12 Memorandum submitted in January 2011 by the Tax Faculty of the Institute of Chartered Accountants
More informationFinnish Arbitration Act (23 October 1992/967)
Finnish Arbitration Act (23 October 1992/967) Comments of the Secretariat of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) on the basis of the unofficial translation from Finnish
More informationChina Publishes the 2nd Version of the Anti-Monopoly Guidelines on the Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights
CPI s Asia Column Presents: China Publishes the 2nd Version of the Anti-Monopoly Guidelines on the Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights By Stephanie Wu April 2017 Abstract Article 55 of the Anti-Monopoly
More informationRecent Developments Regarding the Application of German Merger Control to International Transactions
GERMAN COMPETITION LAW UPDATE Recent Developments Regarding the Application of German Merger Control to International Transactions Brussels/Cologne March 17, 2009 This note summarizes a number of recent
More informationMergers and Acquisitions Report 2016 Taiwan
This article was published in the Mergers and Acquisitions Report 2016 on March 23, 2016. Mergers and Acquisitions Report 2016 Taiwan Ken-Ying Tseng, Robin Chang, Lihuei Mao and Patricia Lin, Lee and Li
More informationPre-Merger Notification Interpretation Guidelines 14 (Duplication from Transactions between Affiliates) and 15 (Assets and Sales in Canada)
Pre-Merger Notification Interpretation Guidelines 14 (Duplication from Transactions between Affiliates) and 15 (Assets and Sales in Canada) NATIONAL COMPETITION LAW SECTION CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION June
More informationThe Government of the UK s response to the European Commission s White Paper Towards more effective EU merger control
The Government of the UK s response to the European Commission s White Paper Towards more effective EU merger control Introduction and Summary 1. This is the response of the UK Government (the UK) to the
More informationConduct Rules Under China's Anti-Monopoly Law Throw Out Your Old Rulebook...
Conduct Rules Under China's Anti-Monopoly Law Throw Out Your Old Rulebook... 27 August 2009 John Hickin Partner +852 2843 2576 john.hickin@mayerbrownjsm.com Hannah Ha Partner +852 2843 4378 hannah.ha@mayerbrownjsm.com
More informationIntroduction. The Commission is seeking views on possible improvements of the EU Merger Regulation, in particular:
Introduction This paper is submitted to the European Commission by the Competition Law Forum (CLF), 1 as a response to its public consultation Towards more effective EU merger control. 2 The Commission
More informationGerman Court of Appeals: adding more bite to the de minimis exception for merger control
German Court of Appeals: adding more bite to the de minimis exception for merger control By Tobias Caspary Reprinted from European Competition Law Review Issue 4, 2009 Sweet & Maxwell 100 Avenue Road Swiss
More informationPre-Merger Notification Guide. PERU Estudio Olaechea
Pre-Merger Notification Guide PERU Estudio Olaechea CONTACT INFORMATION Jose Antonio Olaechea and Martin Serkovic Estudio Olaechea Bernardo Monteagudo 201 San Isidro Lima 27, Peru 511.219.0400 joseantonioolaechea@esola.com.pe
More informationMERGER NOTIFICATION AND PROCEDURES TEMPLATE POLAND. January 2011
MERGER NOTIFICATION AND PROCEDURES TEMPLATE POLAND January 2011 IMPORTANT NOTE: This template is intended to provide initial background on the jurisdiction s merger notification and review procedures.
More informationJapan: Merger Control
Japan: Merger Control Hideto Ishida and Etsuko Hara Anderson Mōri & Tomotsune Merger control was introduced in Japan by Law No. 54 of 1947, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Monopoly Act (AMA), at
More informationASIFMA and SIFMA believe that the high-level concerns of financial services firms, including their own members, with the Draft Measures include:
6 April 2018 Institutional Department China Securities Regulatory Commission Fukai Building 19 Jinrong Avenue, Xicheng District Beijing, China 100033 On behalf of its members, the Asia Securities Industry
More informationOrganisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Unclassified DAF/COMP/LACF(2017)15 DAF/COMP/LACF(2017)15 Unclassified Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 16-Mar-2017 English
More informationRegulatory update on CFIUS national security review and proposals for new EU and UK foreign investment regimes
Regulatory update on CFIUS national security review and proposals for new EU and UK foreign investment regimes November 2017 Introduction Recently, a number of proposed cross-border acquisitions were aborted
More informationUK Merger Control Law & Practice
UK Merger Control Law & Practice Authors: Nicole Kar, Simon Pritchard & Nicholas Scola UK Merger Control Law & Practice 2 Contents Introduction: UK Merger Control Law & Practice 4 Legislation and Enforcing
More informationAlert Memo BRUSSELS AND HONG KONG FEBRUARY 18, China s State Council Issues Notice on National Security Review of Foreign Acquisitions
Alert Memo BRUSSELS AND HONG KONG FEBRUARY 18, 2011 China s State Council Issues Notice on National Security Review of Foreign Acquisitions On March 5, 2011, a new national security regime regulating foreign
More informationIn Antitrust we trust? Q&A: The GC of $3.5b NetApp Supporting Aussie bushfire victims. The sun is shining in China HK: don t take costs for granted
Vol 7 Issue 9 November 2009 A PACIFIC BUSINESS PRESS PUBLICATION www.pbpress.com In Antitrust we trust? Q&A: The GC of $3.5b NetApp Supporting Aussie bushfire victims The sun is shining in China HK: don
More informationPre-Merger Notification Guide. HUNGARY Nagy és Trócsányi
Pre-Merger Notification Guide HUNGARY Nagy és Trócsányi CONTACT INFORMATION Dr. Péter Berethalmi and Dr. Orsolya Kovács Nagy és Trócsányi Ugocsa utca 4/B Budapest, 1126 Hungary 36.1.487.8712/8717 berethalmi.peter@nt.hu
More informationAmCham EU s response to the European Commission s consultation on the draft revision of simplified procedure and merger implementing regulation
AmCham EU s response to the European Commission s consultation on the draft revision of simplified procedure and merger implementing regulation simplified procedure and merger implementing regulation Page
More informationGlobal Practice Guides. Merger Control. Law & Practice. Contributed Pérez-Llorca. Trends & Developments: North East:
CHAMBERS BRAZIL Merger Control Global Practice Guides Law & Practice: Contributed by Mattos Filho, Veiga Filho, Marrey Jr. e Quiroga Law & Practice sections provide easily accessible information on Spain
More informationBanking and Credit Organizations in the Russian Market
20. Banking 20.1 Introduction As of 1 February 2016 there were 676 banks registered in Russia. The Central Bank of the Russian Federation (the Bank of Russia ) is the key regulatory authority for banking
More informationREVIEW OF DOUBLE TAXATION TREATIES AND DOUBLE CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENTS
REVIEW OF DOUBLE TAXATION TREATIES AND DOUBLE CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENTS 2010-11 Memorandum submitted on 1 February 2010 by the Tax Faculty of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales to
More informationSettlement Methods and Risk-hedging for Domestic Sales in China (Part 1)
Mizuho Bank, Ltd., Hong Kong Corporate Banking Division No.1 China ASEAN Research & Advisory Department April 2016 Settlement Methods and Risk-hedging for Domestic Sales in China (Part 1) Kiyoshi KOZUKA
More informationDetailed Recommendations 2: Develop Green Funds
Detailed Recommendations 2: Develop Green Funds 2 This is a background paper to the report: Establishing China s Green Financial System published by the Research Bureau of the People s Bank of China and
More informationChina Competition Bulletin
China Competition Bulletin The China Competition Bulletin summarises the latest developments of competition and regulatory policy in the People s Republic of China, covering laws and policies, cases, agency
More informationTrends & Developments
Germany Trends & Developments Contributed by P+P Pöllath + Partners P+P Pöllath + Partners is an internationally operating law firm, whose 34 partners and more than 100 lawyers and tax advisers in Berlin,
More information