In this issue:
A New York-based think tank, the Conference Board, has said China and India will account for half the world’s economic growth in the next 10 years. Even if this is optimistic, understanding the financial, regulatory, and business climate in these two countries is crucial to any global business. Yet both have nascent competition regimes. We asked three on-site authorities from each country to educate us on the successes and challenges India and China have experienced to date in their approaches to antitrust.
-
China – An Antitrust Update
You Better Watch Out, You Better Not Cry: China’s Emerging Approach to Abuse of Dominance
The regulatory void has been filled, to some degree, by the decisions made by the Chinese courts in a number of high profile dominance cases. Martyn Huckerby & Sharon Wong (Mallesons)
Litigation under China’s Anti-Monopoly Law
This analysis of several early cases brought under the AML shows that civil litigation is already beginning to impact business behavior. Lester Ross (WilmerHale)
China Antitrust Law: A Round-up of Recent Developments
A careful observer could find that the enforcement authorities are actually beefing up their enforcement and composing themselves for more active applications of the AML in the future. Jun Wei (Hogan Lovells)
-
India – An Antitrust Update
India’s New Antitrust Regime
Nearly four decades of experience with the MRTP Act generated very little by way of skills that could be of use for the Competition Act. Aditya Bhattacharjea (University of Delhi).
Supreme Court Verdict in CCI v SAIL: Setting the Ground Rules for Commission and the Appellate Tribunal
The judgment of the Supreme Court rightly echoed the sentiments of proponents of a free and fair market economy and it will go a long way in sketching the competition law landscape in the country. Parthsarathi Jha (Trilegal).
India Competition Commission Steeled by the Supreme Court
In a comprehensive and unanimous judgment, the Court endorsed the intent of the legislature to afford a speedy and effective resolution to matters before the Commission and limited the right of parties to challenge its orders before the Appellate Tribunal. (Abdullah Hussain)
