Send to Friend
RSS Feed-
5901 November 2007
By Susan Ning & Ding Liang
On one hand, the AML bears some unique Chinese characteristics. For instance, Article 4 of the AML provides, “the State shall make and implement competition rules suitable for the socialist market economy, perfect the macro control, and improve a united, open, competitive and well-ordered market system.”
On the other hand, EC and U.S. law had a considerable influence on the formation of the AML. For instance, Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 provides for formal settlements of investigations by the EC into suspected infringements of Articles 81 or 82 of the EC Treaty.
-
13510 October 2007
(in Mandarin)
By: Stephen C. Wu
(The article reflects only the author's opinion and does not represent the opinion of Lee and Li.)
This article discusses the regulations governing pricing under the Taiwan Fair Trade Act. -
8109 October 2007
By Keom-Seok Oh and Sanghoon Shin
The Korean Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) reviewed its fair trade regime in 2006 and amendments have been made to the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act and related instruments. The amendments range from substantive legal standards such as the details of the cartel prohibitions and the determination of price abuse by dominant firms to increases in the level of surcharges for breaches. -
7701 October 2007
By Keum-Seok Oh and Il Kang
The U.S. Supreme Court recently established a new case law in Leegin, holding that the rule of reason rather than per se illegality should be applied in resale price maintenance cases. Since it corresponds with the lessons of recent economic theories, Korean competition laws should also take the same approach. -
8201 October 2007
By Seung-Hun Lee and Winton J Kim
A ruling of the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) imposed substantial surcharges on six construction companies for collusion, finding that each of the companies conspired to bid for different sections of a construction project into which the construction works were divided and for which separate bids were sought.The KFTC found collusion in this case not from direct evidence of coordinated action but rather inferring collusion from the internal records of the companies suggesting that they had allocated parts of the project rather than competed for all sections.