A Comparative Analysis of the Impact of Anti-Monopoly Laws on Chinas Juice-Beverage Industry
OVERVIEW
Antitrust laws, among many forms of business transactions, govern the rules and regulations of monopolies and its related transactions. Without such laws in place and enforced, public and business entities, alike, would be less regulated and able to seize control of both local and global markets, resulting in consumers having to pay prices set by such monopolistic endeavors. To protect such consumer interests and to avoid price adjustments and/or market control by any single entity within an industry, the application of antitrust laws have become a highly valued and economically efficient and beneficial method of regulating business deals and transactions, particularly with regards to monopolies, known as anti-monopoly laws. These same public policies underlying anti-monopoly laws are not solely endorsed by the United States, but also by numerous countries that are exposed, or in danger of exposure, to monopolistic conditions within their various markets, industries and economies.
Anti-monopoly laws have evolved over hundreds of years for various countries and cultures. Particularly, China is a newcomer into this realm of law, and although it has made major progress in its movement to ascertain proper legal guidelines, there still remains opportunity for improvement within its application of its already established laws. This paper will analyze the impact of the United States’ and China’s anti-monopoly laws, principally on the juice-beverage industry within China, as it relates to the unapproved acquisition of Huiyuan Juice Company, Ltd. (“Huiyuan”) by a foreign direct United States investor, The Coca-Cola Company (“Coca-Cola”).
ANTI-MONOPOLY LAWS: THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
In order to successfully analyze the application of China’s anti-monopoly laws, it is with utmost importance that the application of the anti-monopoly laws of the United States is understood, since the foreign-direct investor analyzed within this paper is from the United States and also due to the fact that the United States has an already established and well-founded basis of anti-monopoly law built on public policies similar to those of China, which include protecting both the national economy and consumers’ interests.
Accordingly, on July 2, 1890, the President of the United States, President Benjamin Harrison, signed into law a landmark federal statute to regulate competition, entitled the Sherman Antitrust Act (“Sherman Act”). Specifically, the Sherman Act regulates anti-monopoly law within Section 2, as it reads:
“Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding