Antitrust Laws Gain Momentum In Asia Pacific
An economic boom in the Asia Pacific is leading to more antitrust and competition laws.
November 30, 2010 at 07:00 PM
18 minute read
Putting it mildly, Asia Pacific business historically has lacked enthusiasm for competition and antitrust regulation.
“Antitrust laws are simply not ingrained in the culture and are in fact contrary to the way business people have operated in this part of the world,” says Marc Waha, a competition partner at Norton Rose. “If you look at the success of the Asian tigers in the '80s and '90s, you'll see that much of their success was built on joint ventures and cartels and the like.”
But the environment changed rapidly as Asia Pacific economies sought economic aid and foreign investment in an increasingly globalized world.
“A good number of competition laws were enacted as a condition of entry to the WTO (World Trade Organization), as a condition of IMF bailouts or as part and parcel of bilateral trade agreements,” Waha says.
In 2010 the pace picked up as Hong Kong and Malaysia scheduled the introduction of new competition laws for the first time; Indonesia implemented a new merger clearance regime; and several countries amended their laws significantly.
“All of the jurisdictions in East Asia except North Korea and Myanmar, but including Cambodia and Laos, have adopted antitrust regulations or committed to introducing them in the next few years,” Waha says.
Even where extraterritorial assets are the subject of a merger, the fact that the merging parties' main customers are in Asia may be enough to trigger local merger control requirements. Japan, for example, recently reformed its laws to broaden their extraterritorial effect.
“When BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto proposed to pool their resources in Australia, the fact that Japan, China and Korea joined the European Union in objecting to the transaction was the trigger for the deal's demise,” Waha says.
But the process has been a long time coming.
Signing Up
Japan and the Philippines were the first to adopt antitrust laws, part of their 1950s legacy from the American occupation under Gen. Douglas MacArthur. But the governments did little to enforce the laws in any meaningful way.
South Korea adopted competition legislation in 1993, followed by Thailand (1999), Indonesia (1999), Taiwan (2002), Vietnam (2004) and Malaysia (2010, taking effect in 2012). The enactment of China's Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) in 2008 was a significant step for a country edging ever closer to a truly modern economy. In many ways, the AML followed the lead of the American and European antitrust regimes by providing broad guidelines regarding abuse of dominance, cartels and merger review. It also gave private parties (as well as the government) a right of action against offenders.
As for the longstanding free-market economies, Singapore adopted a competition statute in 1994. Hong Kong, which unlike other international economies did not have a general competition law regime, finally came on board with the mid-2010 introduction of the Competition Bill, expected to take effect in 2012 or 2013.
Bearing Down
Still, enactment is one thing and enforcement quite another.
“It wasn't until the end of the '90s that Japan discovered that competition laws could be a tool of economic regulation and started enforcing the country's laws very seriously,” Waha says. “The Philippines still doesn't enforce its competition laws, even though they constitute part of the penal code, and it's only lately that Korean authorities have been serious about enforcement, using the legislation as a tool of economic deregulation at the expense of the conglomerates that still operate there.”
In 2009, regulators in Asia imposed $1.5 billion in fines, with Japan and Korea imposing 95 percent of the total.
Yet there are signs that other Asia Pacific regulators are starting to bear down. So far this year, fines have totalled $260 million in Japan, $141 million in Korea and $120 million in Indonesia. China imposed its first fines, totalling $200,000. Singapore and Taiwan have also imposed fines in 2010, albeit less than $1 million in either country.
“While these sums may be small by American and European standards, they have drawn the attention of business in the Asia Pacific context,” Waha says.
And even where the goodwill to enforce competition laws exists, tactical difficulties can get in the way.
“For example, there are very nice laws on the book in Vietnam,” Waha says. “But the competition people we deal with earn less than $100 monthly and often defect to the private sector, where salaries are 20 or 30 times as much.”
Politics also plays a role. In places such as Malaysia and Vietnam, appointments to the regulating bodies are at the discretion of the Prime Minister.
“Enforcement is only effective if the regulator has a degree of independence, and that is lacking in many jurisdictions,” Waha says.
Yet progress continues in many places.
“There's a good focus on educating the business community about competition law in Vietnam and other places, and that's making the countries a better place in which to invest,” says Martin Commons, special counsel at Baker & McKenzie in China.
Client Counsel
Still, giving advice to clients can be a difficult task for both internal and external counsel. That's largely because even in jurisdictions where enforcement is taken seriously, guidance can be scant.
“If you go on the Singapore regulator's website, you'll get a pretty good idea of how the authorities look at the law, and Vietnam is coming along,” Commons says. “It's very different in China and Thailand, where it's hard to get information, details are long in coming, and sometimes the best you can do for a client is help them to make a risk assessment or hope there is no investigation.”
The upshot is that legal advice on the subject must focus on the specific.
“There's a commonly accepted view that it's very difficult to draw conclusions or give advice with reference to the region as a whole,” Waha says.
Putting it mildly, Asia Pacific business historically has lacked enthusiasm for competition and antitrust regulation.
“Antitrust laws are simply not ingrained in the culture and are in fact contrary to the way business people have operated in this part of the world,” says Marc Waha, a competition partner at
But the environment changed rapidly as Asia Pacific economies sought economic aid and foreign investment in an increasingly globalized world.
“A good number of competition laws were enacted as a condition of entry to the WTO (World Trade Organization), as a condition of IMF bailouts or as part and parcel of bilateral trade agreements,” Waha says.
In 2010 the pace picked up as Hong Kong and Malaysia scheduled the introduction of new competition laws for the first time; Indonesia implemented a new merger clearance regime; and several countries amended their laws significantly.
“All of the jurisdictions in East Asia except North Korea and Myanmar, but including Cambodia and Laos, have adopted antitrust regulations or committed to introducing them in the next few years,” Waha says.
Even where extraterritorial assets are the subject of a merger, the fact that the merging parties' main customers are in Asia may be enough to trigger local merger control requirements. Japan, for example, recently reformed its laws to broaden their extraterritorial effect.
“When BHP Billiton and
But the process has been a long time coming.
Signing Up
Japan and the Philippines were the first to adopt antitrust laws, part of their 1950s legacy from the American occupation under Gen. Douglas MacArthur. But the governments did little to enforce the laws in any meaningful way.
South Korea adopted competition legislation in 1993, followed by Thailand (1999), Indonesia (1999), Taiwan (2002), Vietnam (2004) and Malaysia (2010, taking effect in 2012). The enactment of China's Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) in 2008 was a significant step for a country edging ever closer to a truly modern economy. In many ways, the AML followed the lead of the American and European antitrust regimes by providing broad guidelines regarding abuse of dominance, cartels and merger review. It also gave private parties (as well as the government) a right of action against offenders.
As for the longstanding free-market economies, Singapore adopted a competition statute in 1994. Hong Kong, which unlike other international economies did not have a general competition law regime, finally came on board with the mid-2010 introduction of the Competition Bill, expected to take effect in 2012 or 2013.
Bearing Down
Still, enactment is one thing and enforcement quite another.
“It wasn't until the end of the '90s that Japan discovered that competition laws could be a tool of economic regulation and started enforcing the country's laws very seriously,” Waha says. “The Philippines still doesn't enforce its competition laws, even though they constitute part of the penal code, and it's only lately that Korean authorities have been serious about enforcement, using the legislation as a tool of economic deregulation at the expense of the conglomerates that still operate there.”
In 2009, regulators in Asia imposed $1.5 billion in fines, with Japan and Korea imposing 95 percent of the total.
Yet there are signs that other Asia Pacific regulators are starting to bear down. So far this year, fines have totalled $260 million in Japan, $141 million in Korea and $120 million in Indonesia. China imposed its first fines, totalling $200,000. Singapore and Taiwan have also imposed fines in 2010, albeit less than $1 million in either country.
“While these sums may be small by American and European standards, they have drawn the attention of business in the Asia Pacific context,” Waha says.
And even where the goodwill to enforce competition laws exists, tactical difficulties can get in the way.
“For example, there are very nice laws on the book in Vietnam,” Waha says. “But the competition people we deal with earn less than $100 monthly and often defect to the private sector, where salaries are 20 or 30 times as much.”
Politics also plays a role. In places such as Malaysia and Vietnam, appointments to the regulating bodies are at the discretion of the Prime Minister.
“Enforcement is only effective if the regulator has a degree of independence, and that is lacking in many jurisdictions,” Waha says.
Yet progress continues in many places.
“There's a good focus on educating the business community about competition law in Vietnam and other places, and that's making the countries a better place in which to invest,” says Martin Commons, special counsel at
Client Counsel
Still, giving advice to clients can be a difficult task for both internal and external counsel. That's largely because even in jurisdictions where enforcement is taken seriously, guidance can be scant.
“If you go on the Singapore regulator's website, you'll get a pretty good idea of how the authorities look at the law, and Vietnam is coming along,” Commons says. “It's very different in China and Thailand, where it's hard to get information, details are long in coming, and sometimes the best you can do for a client is help them to make a risk assessment or hope there is no investigation.”
The upshot is that legal advice on the subject must focus on the specific.
“There's a commonly accepted view that it's very difficult to draw conclusions or give advice with reference to the region as a whole,” Waha says.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHunter Biden Sues Fox, Ex-Chief Legal Officer Over Mock Trial Series
Judge Sides With McDonald's In Attorney-Client Privilege Dispute With Former Executives
4 minute readMarriott's $52M Data Breach Settlement Points to Emerging Trend
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 3BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 4GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 5A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
Who Got The Work
Blank Rome partner Andrew T. Hambelton has stepped in to defend Fragrancenet.com in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 29 in New York Southern District Court by the Blakely Law Group, targets the defendants for allegedly selling counterfeit fragrance products. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield, is 1:24-cv-06521, Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. v. Quester (US) Enterprises, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Davis Polk & Wardwell partners Mari Grace and Edmund Polubinski III have entered appearances for Australia-based Bitcoin-mining company Iris Energy and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Eastern District Court by the Rosen Law Firm, contends that the defendants concealed the inadequacy of the company's site in Childress County, Texas, including it being 'ill-equipped' and unable to operate the company's proprietary design. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Peggy Kuo, is 1:24-cv-07046, Williams-Israel v. Iris Energy Limited et al.
Who Got The Work
Ryan S. Stippich of Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren has entered an appearance for biopharmaceutical company Veru Inc. and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 30 in Wisconsin Western District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of June Ovadias, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that small sample sizes and other issues rendered it unlikely that the FDA would grant Emergency Use Authorization for the cancer drug candidate sabizabulin as a potential treatment for COVID-19. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge William M. Conley, is 3:24-cv-00676, Ovadias, June v. Steiner, Mitchell et al.
Who Got The Work
Holland & Knight partners Cynthia A. Gierhart and Thomas Willcox Brooke have entered appearances for Pakistani American Political Action Committee and Rao Kamran Ali in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 24 in District of Columbia District Court by Jackson Walker on behalf of Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee, accuses the defendants of using a mark that's confusingly similar to the plaintiff's 'Pak-Pac' marks without authorization. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss, is 1:24-cv-02727, Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee v. Pakistani American Political Action Committee et al.
Who Got The Work
Lauren M. Rosenberg and Yonatan Even of Cravath, Swaine & Moore have stepped in to represent Israel-based Oddity Tech Ltd. in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Aug. 30 in New York Southern District Court by Pomerantz LLP and Holzer & Holzer, contends that the defendant made materially misleading statements regarding the capability of Oddity's AI technology and ongoing civil litigation, resulting in the artifical inflation of the market price of Oddity's securities. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett, is 1:24-cv-06571, Hoare v. Oddity Tech Ltd. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250