In this issue:
Last issue we looked at how protectionist sentiments are playing out in Europe; for this issue, we’ve invited four Asian experts to take a look at whether protectionism exists in Asia. The answers differ, present contrasting viewpoints, and even introduce a little irony. And we have three intriguing updates in our Of Special Interest section, dealing with recent court rulings in Nexium, internet distributions systems, and recent activity using screens in financial and other markets.
Protectionism in Asia?
There could be objective justifications as to why foreign firms are more likely to find themselves the subject of antitrust investigations and infringement decisions. Kala Anandarajah & Tanya Tang (Rajah & Tann)
Perhaps all this renewed talk about protectionist merger control might actually tempt some countries to embrace, or at least get closer to, a protectionist merger control regime. Cecil Saehoon Chung, Kyoung Yeon Kim, & Kyu Hyun Kim (Yulchon LLC)
It should not shock puritanical antitrust folks to find traces (or more) of nationalistic leanings in various aspects of competition law enforcement in the newly established competition law jurisdictions. K K Sharma (K K Sharma Law Offices)
Unlike these counterparts, however, MOFCOM has also imposed a number of other conditions on merging parties that have rarely—if ever—been sought by other authorities. Scott Sher & Daniel Kane (Wilson Sonsini)
Of Special Interest
The debates over such valuations, and over causation, promise to be significant battlefronts in these cases and particularly in Nexium. Rosa Morales & Ankur Kapoor (Constantine Cannon)
Until then, suppliers in systems of selective distribution operating on the internet should be advised to err on the side of caution. Fryderyk Hoffmann
How can an argument against screens be credibly made given all of the significant examples of their successes, namely on financial benchmarks? Rosa Abrantes-Metz (Global Economics Group)