Douglas Ginsburg and John Taladay about ‘The Enduring Vitality of Comity in a Globalized World’ (2017) George Mason Law Review 24 1069

Different competition agencies apply different legal standards, procedures and approaches to identifying and redressing perceived antitrust violations. One inescapable consequence of the global proliferation of competition regimes is a much greater risk of conflict, which can take various forms and which are particularly high when an agency applies an “effects” doctrine that allows for the imposition of remedies that necessarily have an effect beyond that jurisdiction’s own borders. This article, available here,  identifies a deficit in the international coordination mechanisms that are available, and proposes an expanded use of traditional comity to ensure that international competition law enforcement produces benefits for consumers while minimising unnecessary and inappropriate interference with the legitimate interests of foreign jurisdictions. Section I looks at how the difference in the substantive standards applied by different jurisdictions can be a source of potential international conflict. A key source of tension in international competition law enforcement emanates from differences in the substantive standards applied by different jurisdictions. The…

Angela Huyue Zhang ‘Strategic Comity’ (2019) Yale Journal of International Law 44(2)

The extent to which US courts should enforce antitrust laws against state-led export cartels has been the subject of intense debate among academics, courts and policymakers for decades. While defendants often invoke the state compulsion defence, which is based on comity and respect for foreign sovereigns, these doctrines have long been criticised for their ambiguity and inconsistent application. The recent Supreme Court decision regarding the Chinese state-led Vitamin C cartel – reviewed here – highlights a number of challenges with the way these doctrines have been applied in the US. The author’s argument in this paper, available here, is that the application of both comity and foreign state compulsion defences are susceptible to political considerations, and that the Supreme Court decision is a good example of this. The author argues that the Supreme Court proactively solicited the opinion of the executive branch before hearing its case, and its final ruling is exactly in line with the opinions and suggestions proposed…

Julien Briguet ‘The State’s Invisible Hand: Chinese SOEs Facing EU Antitrust Law‘ (2018) World Competition Law 52(5) 839

Chinese outbound merger and acquisition (M&A) activity has surged in Europe during the last decade. Chinese companies, particularly state-owned enterprises (SOEs) were the key drivers of this surge, amounting to 70% of these investments in Europe. This paper, available here, argues that the way the European Commission looks at mergers involving Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs) suffers from several flaws. These arise primarily from inconsistency in how the single economic entity doctrine has been applied to these companies – sometimes a single Chinese SOE is taken to be the relevant economic unit, sometimes all SOEs active in a specific industry were said to comprise the acquiring undertaking. The author argues that a more systematic application of the single economic entity doctrine is required to restore consistency to the case law, address the realities of China’s State capitalism and protect the principle of competitive neutrality at the core of EU competition law. Section two reviews how the single economic entity doctrine applies…

Pieter J. F. Huizing ‘Comparing territorial limits to EU and US public enforcement of the LCD cartel’ (2018) Journal of Antitrust Enforcement 6 231

This article, available here, describes the US and EU positions on the territorial scope of public cartel enforcement – i.e. how far outside their territories can competition authorities reach to punish cartel conduct committed abroad by foreign undertakings – by reference to the LCD cartel. Cartelised LCD panels were manufactured by a number of Asian producers with varying levels of direct and indirect imports into the EU and the USA. Both the European Commission (Commission) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) had to determine the territorial limits to their enforcement in respect of this international cartel, and to then defend their approach in court. In both jurisdictions, it is accepted that competition authorities benefit from long territorial reach and wide discretion in determining the amount of fines. It is submitted that the legal precedents created by decisions regarding this cartel are a cause for concern in view of the increasingly crowded global cartel enforcement arena. This argument is developed…

Luca Prete ‘On Implementation and Effects: The Recent Case-law on the Territorial (or Extraterritorial?) Application of EU Competition Rules’ (2018) Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 9(8) 487

In an era of globalisation and digitalisation, complex issues may arise as regards the laws applicable to situations that either involve cross-border elements or occur in cyberspace. The disconnect between the borderless nature of modern trade and the essentially domestic character of economic laws may give rise to complex issues of jurisdiction. Rules and principles of private international law often determine which national laws are applicable in any given situation. However, no equivalent system of binding rules exists as far as the public enforcement of antitrust rules is concerned. As a result, the same business conduct may potentially fall within the jurisdiction of a number of States, each having its own rules. Clearly, problems may not only arise when those rules are dissimilar (or interpreted and applied differently), but also when various jurisdictions with identical rules are applied cumulatively to the same conduct. This piece, available here, reviews European jurisprudence concerning the reach and scope of the EU’s competition laws….

Omar Shah, Christina Renner and Leonidas Theodosiou ‘Intel, iiyama, Power Cables: A Revolution in the Treatment of Territoriality and Jurisdiction in EU Competition Law?’ (2019) Journal of European Competition Law & Practice

Important recent decisions by the EU and national courts – in Intel, iiyama and Power Cables – have set the stage for a potential increase in public enforcement and private litigation of business conduct which has effects on competition in the EU internal market despite not being implemented there. This paper, available here, addresses the potential changes to EU and national law wrought by these decisions, and considers the extent to which limiting principles may emerge to address potential conflicts of law, multiplicity of proceedings and double jeopardy. It is structured as follows: Section 2 describes the evolution of EU law on the jurisdictional reach of its competition provisions. The EU Courts have had to delimit the jurisdictional scope of EU law, typically in the context of judicial review of decisions of the European Commission (‘Commission’) in which the Commission had exercised enforcement jurisdiction over conduct whose territorial links to the EU were susceptible to challenge. Early on, the Court…

Chinese Vitamins – Extraterritoriality and State Compulsion

This is a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the ‘Chinese Vitamins case’ (Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, 585 U. S. [to be determined] (2018), available here). As to the facts of the case, in 2005 Animal Science sued Hebei Welcome. Animal Science manufactures livestock supplements, in which it uses Vitamin C. It alleged that Hebei and other Chinese manufacturers had fixed the prices of the Vitamin C that they sold to the United States. The Chinese sellers moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that Chinese law required them to fix the price and quantity of vitamin C exports, thus shielding them from liability under U. S. antitrust law by the act of state doctrine, the foreign sovereign compulsion doctrine, and under principles of international comity. The Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China (the ‘Ministry’) filed an amicus brief explaining that it is the administrative authority authorized to regulate foreign trade,…

When is a rebate prima facie anticompetitive? Case C‑413/14 P Intel v Commission ECLI:EU:C:2017:632

This piece reviews the Court of Justice’s decision by the Grand Chamber in Intel (Case C‑413/14 P Intel v Commission ECLI:EU:C:2017:632), which can be found at http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-413/14. The facts of the case are relatively straightforward. Intel sells x86 CPUs processors. The x86 architecture is a standard designed by Intel for its CPUs, and can run both Windows and Linux operating systems. The European Commission found that Intel had engaged in two abusive conducts concerning these processers intended to exclude a competitor, AMD, from the market for x86 CPUs; and imposed a EUR 1.06 billion fine. The first conduct consisted in the grant of rebates to four original equipment manufacturers (‘OEMs’), namely Dell, Lenovo, HP and NEC. These rebates were conditional on these OEMs purchasing all or almost all of their x86 CPUs from Intel. The second conduct consisted in making payments to OEMs so that they would delay, cancel or restrict the marketing of certain products equipped with AMD CPUs….

Luis Ortiz Blanco and Jose Luis Azofra Parrondo ‘The Intel Case: Issues of Economic Analysis, Comity and Procedural Fairness’

According to the authors of this short pirce – which can be found here – the Intel judgment addresses three main issues: (i) the role that economic analysis – and the as-efficient-competitor test – should play in the context of abuses of dominant position in general, and loyalty rebates in particular; (ii) the jurisdiction of the European Commission and international comity; and (iii) procedural fairness and the rights of the defence. Looking at each in turn: The As-Efficient-Competitor (AEC) Test – This part of the paper describes the facts of the case and outlines the Court’s reasoning. For the authors, the main doubt concerning this judgment is: ‘whether the Court has willingly or unwillingly opened the door to an obligation to drive thorough economic analysis in all abuse-related cases without exception’. The Commission decided – and the General Court agreed – that Intel’s rebates were by their very nature capable of restricting competition. This was based on the EU Courts’…

Eleanor Fox “China, Export Cartels and Vitamin C: America Second?”

This paper, which can be found here, seems to argue that framing the issue in this case – which was described in the post below – as a matter of international comity misunderstands the matters at stake. The question is first, one of jurisdiction under the effects’ doctrine over a cartel implemented abroad, and, following this, about whether the US rules on the foreign sovereign compulsion defence apply. The correct interpretation of Chinese law may be relevant, but only in certain circumstances and only in the course of the normal application of US rules. She begins by pointing out that this is a case of a naked cartel, and that China’s sole role in it is to intervene before US courts in order to free its manufacturers from the consequences of violating the clear and well-known rule of US law forbidding price fixing. As such, the matter is not merely whether China alone can say what Chinese law is, which is…