中国反垄断之战
松下(Panasonic)成为世界百强企业，靠的不是听命于中国官僚机构。不过，在中国商务部公布了一项具有里程碑意义的判决之后，这家成立于1918年、原名Matsushita的日本电子产品制造商发现，自己正处于不得不从命的尴尬处境。
上月，中国政府要求松下剥离其倍受觊觎的多项日本资产，作为交换，松下收购本国竞争对手三洋电机(Sanyo Electric)的交易将获得中国反垄断机构的批准，此举为全球各地急切希望进行并购的首席执行官们敲响了警钟。此项判决是中国在反垄断审查中首次动用 2008年8月获得的法定权力，强制要求处置境外的资产。其中的含义十分清楚：在全球最热的市场开展业务，可能要付出相当大的代价。
当然，中国也不是唯一采取此类行动的国家。美国和欧盟(EU)等地区，都曾以自身庞大的消费市场的准入权为诱饵，对外国公司提出条件。包括通用电气(GE)和微软(Microsoft)在内的美国企业都可以证明，在与欧盟反垄断机构的多次过招中，它们都伤痕累累。
但近几个月公布的裁决越来越强硬，以此判断，中国正迅速崛起为一个竞争性的权力中心，正利用新的法规，在进行高调并购的全球性企业身上留下其独有的资本主义印记。如同其他领域一样，中国正慢慢地将自身意志强加于全球商业界。 北 京方面曾利用《反垄断法》，强制要求开展并购交易的全球性企业出售在华资产，或是阻止它们收购本国企业——例如可口可乐(Coca-Cola)收购汇源的 案例。这种针对可能影响国内市场的全球并购交易日益强硬的态度，正引起国际交易撮合者的忧虑，他们担心这可能限制收购活动。“无疑，对于考虑进行并购的全球性企业来说，获得中国的并购批准是一个主要问题，”富而德律师事务所(Freshfields)中国竞争事务联席主 管尼古拉斯•弗伦奇(Nicholas French)表示。“交易撮合者中存在一种担心，即和像欧盟这样的地区相比，他们在中国会遭遇额外的障碍，”他补充道。
中国的《反垄断法》大体上以欧盟模式为基础。除了合并管制之外，该法规还涵盖了滥用市场支配地位和反竞争协议的内容。事实上，就在对松下的裁决公布 前几天，中国国有企业中国移动(China Mobile)同意支付1000元人民币（合145美元），与一位客户就一桩法律诉讼达成和解。这位客户指控中国移动滥用其垄断地位，从用户身上攫取超额 利润。中国移动拥有5亿用户，是全球最大的移动电话运营商。
这是此类诉讼首次在法庭调解之下达成和解，尽管赔偿金额较小，但意义重大，因为这有可能打开巨大的闸门。与微软一样，另外几家中国内地蓝筹公司也面临与垄断相关的法律诉讼。
准备进行并购的全球性企业，会发现自己很快就要同中国负责合并事务的部门打交道。参与合并的每家企业在中国境内的营业额若超过4亿元人民币，或是所有企业在中国境内的营业额合计超过20亿元人民币，就必须申请当地反垄断审查批准。
跨国公司私下表示，他们对中国合并审查进程的缓慢和不透明性感到失望。有些公司认为，这种审查被用作保护本国企业免于竞争的工具，并怀疑合并审查会受到产业政策考虑的左右——这与美国、欧盟和日本的情况不同。
在松下的案例中，中国商务部下属的反垄断局在松下第一次提 交申报申请文件之后4个月才予以接受。此项审查也是迄今首个进行到“第三阶段”的审查，意味着专案官员还有6个月的考虑时间。反垄断局最终裁定，松下与三 洋合并后，会在中国三种电池产品领域占有46%或以上的市场份额，因此要求其剥离在日本的多处生产设施，并将其对与丰田(Toyota)合资设立的一家非中国企业的出资比例减半。
尽管美国和欧盟相关部门也要求松下出售海外业务，却没有寻求对合资企业采取行动。“像松下裁决中特别规定的那种境外剥离要求，在美国或欧盟等其它反 垄断司法辖区并不常见，”富而德律师事务所北京办事处的韩亮(Michael Han)表示。“中国对反垄断法的执行力度比预想的更大。”
在另一起案件中，今年9月中国政府裁决，通用汽车(GM)收购已破产的零部件制造商德尔福公司(Delphi)部分业务的交易，将限制中国内地市场 的竞争。中国方面附加了几个条件，包括禁止交换德尔福掌握的其它中国客户的商业机密。而对于此笔交易，美国和欧洲相关部门都无条件予以放行。
这些公司都可以选择放弃中国业务，而不接受北京方面的苛刻条件。但这样做可能导致它们未来数十年都被挡在中国市场之外。 中国在全球反垄断监管中的重大影响力，不仅来自于其自身的经济规模。全球交易撮合者还发现，自己受制于中国反垄断局的少数年轻技术官员。
北京参与合并申请事务的人士表示，通常一个案例小组由三位官员组成：一位35岁上下的主管和两名年轻助手。“领导成员通常头脑敏锐，熟谙竞争法——但缺乏全球商业领域的经验，”一位曾接手多项申请的北京律师表示。
案例小组会向反垄断局局长尚明提出建议，最终由商务部副部长马秀红签字批准。但考虑到这项工作的专业性，且高层领导缺乏专业知识，因此这些建议很少进行改动。
这与中国更为常见的自上而下的决策方式截然相反，令那些习惯于通过游说高级政府官员获得理想结果的投资银行家和企业高管们十分郁闷。“在中国历史上，如此年轻的官员掌握这么大权力的情况十分罕见，”一位驻北京的资深投资银行家哀叹道。
中国反垄断官员知道，自己的一些决定招致了国际社会的非议，在他们看来，这很大程度上有失公平。中国政府认为，这些官员在不懈地执行西方常见的保护消费者的规则。
尽管如此，近几个月发生的一个变化是，中国合并审查裁决都附有篇幅更长的解释说明，以证明裁决的合理性。最初几项裁决只附有两三页针对关键领域的解释，例如市场份额的定义，相比之下，美国和欧盟相关部门常常会发布沉甸甸一本解释说明。
与合并管制相比，禁止反竞争协议的新法规还不够完善，执行也不够有力。与定价和反竞争行为相关的法规由国家工商行政管理局(SAIC)和国家发展改革委员(NARC)负责。它们有望很快宣布具体的实施指导方针。这两家机构也将会在各自的领域拥有巨大的权力。
不过，最近的一些事件对于那些运动发起者是一种鼓励，他们宣称，中国许多大企业都在大肆滥用自身的主导地位，他们希望利用新的法律权力予以应对。除 了针对中国移动的诉讼之外，还提起了大约10宗诉讼，指控被告有侵犯消费者权益的行为。其中包括针对中国网通(China Netcom)、百度(Baidu)以及中国石化(Sinopec)的诉讼，还有待了结。原告指控被告的多种行为违反了反垄断法，例如数额过高的电话费账 单——这在西方社会是常见的诉讼理由——并据此要求获得赔偿。
与中国移动达成和解的北京民权律师周泽预言，其它中国消费品企业也将成为投诉的对象。“他们都曾拥有国有垄断地位，那就是他们思维模式的根源，”他表示。“消费者将会勇敢地反抗。”
然而，国有企业向政府上交着巨额利润，还雇佣着数千万员工。这些政府的左膀右臂被愤愤不平的消费者提起的法律诉讼所淹没的可能性，迫使相关部门在涉及反垄断法的这个部分时行动更加小心谨慎。
对微软提起诉讼的律师董正伟表示，北京一家法院最近驳回了他对电信收费项目和中国国有电信业重组提出的诉讼。董正伟回忆道：“他们说：‘电信业重组 或是国有垄断企业与你个人有什么关系？'我说我是一名消费者。他们说：‘中国有13亿消费者。如果他们都来起诉，我们该怎么办？'”
外国企业也是焦点所在。许多在中国代表外国企业的律师事务所表示，他们的客户一直面临着基于新法律的诉讼威胁，尽管这些诉讼还没有一宗作出判决。但 即将出台的指导原则可能会明确规定损害赔偿的水平，或消费者协会能否代表个人提出诉讼——这样一来律师能够获得更多有利可图的诉讼委托。 与此同时，外国企业正忙着审核自己的中国业务是否符合新法律规定，以降低潜在风险。“如果说2009年是合并管制逐渐兴起的一年，那么明年，那些负责管制垄断定价和行为的政府部门可能会大出风头，”富而德的韩亮表示。译者/何黎
The people's police
Panasonic did not become one of the world's largest 100 companies by taking instructions from Chinese bureaucrats. Yet the Japanese electronic goods maker, founded as Matsushita in 1918, finds itself in the uncomfortable position of having to do just that, following a landmark ruling by China's commerce ministry.
Beijing this month fired a warning to acquisition-hungry chief executives across the globe when it demanded that Panasonic divest several coveted assets in Japan, in return for granting local antitrust approval for its proposed $9bn takeover of Sanyo Electric, a domestic rival. The ruling marks the first time that China has used powers introduced in August 2008 to compel disposals outside the mainland as part of an anti-monopoly review. And the message was clear: operating in the world's hottest market can come at considerable cost.
Certainly, China is hardly alone in taking such actions. The US and European Union are among jurisdictions that have used the lure of access to their vast consumer markets to impose conditions on outside companies. US groups including General Electric and Microsoft can testify to several bruising battles with EU competition authorities.
But judging by the increasingly muscular rulings issued in recent months, Beijing has quickly emerged as a rival power centre and is using new laws to stamp its own idiosyncratic brand of capitalism on global companies engaged in high-profile mergers and acquisitions. As in other areas, China is slowly imposing its will on world commerce. Beijing has used the anti-monopoly laws to force global companies engaged in mergers and acquisitions to sell mainland assets or, in the case of Coca-Cola, to block an acquisition of a local company. This increasingly robust approach towards global M&A that might affect its domestic market is raising concerns among international dealmakers, who fear it could constrain takeover activity.“Without question, merger clearance in China is a major issue for global companies considering M&A,” says Nicholas French, co-head of Freshfields' China competition practice. “There is concern among dealmakers that they could encounter additional hurdles in China, compared to, say, the EU,” he adds.
China's anti-monopoly laws are largely based on the EU model. As well as merger control, they cover the abuse of dominant market positions and anti-competitive agreements. Indeed, just days before the Panasonic ruling, state-owned China Mobile, the world's largest mobile phone group with 500m subscribers, agreed to pay Rmb1,000 ($145, £90, €100) to settle a lawsuit filed by a customer who alleged it used its monopoly position to extract unfair revenue from users.
The court-mediated settlement was the first of its kind and, in spite of the small sum, is significant because it has the potential to open vast floodgates. Several other blue-chip mainland companies face monopoly-related legal action, as does Microsoft.
It does not take much for global companies embarking on M&A to find themselves having to deal with China's merger authorities. Companies have to file for local antitrust approval where each has turnover of Rmb400m in China as well as total global turnover of Rmb10bn, or combined turnover in China of Rmb2bn.
Multinationals speak privately of their frustration at the slow pace and opacity of the country's merger review process. Some believe it is being used as a tool to protect domestic rivals from competition and suspect that – unlike in the US, EU and Japan – merger reviews are open to industrial policy considerations.
In Panasonic's case, China's anti-monopoly bureau, which sits within the commerce ministry, accepted the company's filing four months after it first lodged its paperwork. The review was also the first to proceed to “stage three”, meaning case officers had six further months to deliberate. The bureau eventually ruled that the Panasonic/Sanyo combination would have a market share in China of 46 per cent or more in three battery segments, ordering it to divest several production facilities in Japan and halve its stake in a non-Chinese joint venture with Toyota.
While authorities in the US and EU also asked Panasonic to sell overseas units, they did not seek action on the joint venture. “Extraterritorial divestments such as those specified in the Panasonic ruling are not routine in other antitrust jurisdictions such as the US or EU,” says Michael Han, also of Freshfields in Beijing. “Enforcement in China has been relatively more aggressive than expected.”
In another case, Beijing in September ruled that General Motors' acquisition of some units of Delphi, the bankrupt US car parts maker, would restrict competition on the mainland. It slapped on several conditions, including a ban on exchanging trade secrets on Delphi's other Chinese customers. Authorities in the US and Europe blessed the same deal without conditions.
Companies always have the option to divest their Chinese operations rather than accept onerous conditions from Beijing. But that is an approach likely to shut them out from China's market for generations to come. Not only is China's sheer size giving it a big sway in global antitrust regulation. Global dealmakers are also finding themselves beholden to a handful of young technocrats at its anti-monopoly bureau.Those involved with merger filings in Beijing say a typical case team is made up of three bureaucrats; a director in his mid-30s and two younger assistants. “The lead member will typically be razor-sharp and have a sound knowledge of competition law – but lack experience of global business,” says a Beijing-based lawyer who has worked on several filings.
Case teams make their recommendations to Shang Ming, the director-general of the anti-monopoly bureau, before final sign-off by Ma Xiuhong, a vice-minister of commerce. But given the technical nature of the work and lack of expertise higher up the chain of command, recommendations are rarely revised.
This is contrary to China's more typical top-down approach to decision-making and is frustrating investment bankers and corporate executives who are used to lobbying senior government ministers for their preferred outcomes. “Rarely in Chinese history has so much power been in the hands of such young bureaucrats,” laments one veteran investment banker based in Beijing.
Chinese antitrust officials are aware that some of their decisions have generated disparaging global comment, which they see as largely unfair. The belief in Beijing is that officers are diligently applying pro-consumer laws that are common in the west.
Still, one change in recent months has been that Chinese merger review rulings are being accompanied by longer explanations, in an attempt to justify decisions. The first few rulings came with just two or three pages of explanation on crucial areas such as the definition of market share, compared with weighty tomes often issued by the US and EU authorities.
By contrast to merger control, the new laws proscribing anti-competitive agreements are less developed and aggressively applied. Laws relating to pricing and anti-competitive behaviour are the responsibility of the State Administration of Industry and Commerce and the National Development and Reform Commission, which are soon expected to announce detailed implementation guidelines. These two entities will also come to wield huge powers in their respective niches.
Nevertheless, recent events have provided encouragement to campaigners hoping to use fresh legal powers to tackle what they allege is a rampant abuse of dominant positions by many of China's leading companies. As well as the China Mobile lawsuit, about 10 cases have been filed alleging anti-consumer behaviour. These include suits against China Netcom, Baidu and Sinopec, which await settlement. Plaintiffs are seeking compensation for alleged antitrust abuses such as telephone bills that are too high – a common target for litigation in the west.
Zhou Ze, the Beijing civil rights lawyer who secured the settlement with China Mobile, predicts that other Chinese consumer companies will become subject to complaints. “They all have a history as state-owned monopolists and that is where their mindset comes from,” he says. “Consumers will stand up to that.”
However, state-owned enterprises deliver enormous profits to the government and employ tens of millions. The possibility that these important arms of the state could be deluged with court cases from aggrieved consumers has forced the authorities to move more cautiously on this aspect of the anti-monopoly laws.
Dong Zhengwei, a lawyer who filed the case against Microsoft, says a Beijing court recently rejected his complaint over telecoms fees and the restructuring of the country's state-owned telecoms industry. Mr Dong recalls: “They said, ‘What does the restructuring of the telecom sector or state-owned monopolies have to do with you as an individual?' I said I am a consumer. They said, ‘China has 1.3bn consumers. If they all come suing, what should we do?' ” Foreign companies are also in the frame. Many law firms that represent them in China say their clients have been threatened with litigation under the new law, though none of these suits has yet been decided. But the coming guidelines could specify the level of damages or whether consumer associations can sue on behalf of individuals, which would allow lawyers to bring more lucrative suits.In the meantime, foreign companies are scrambling to reduce potential risks by auditing whether their Chinese business complies with the new laws. “If 2009 was the year for the emergence of merger control, then next year is likely to see the emergence of those ministries responsible for policing monopolistic pricing and behaviour,” says Freshfields' Mr Han.
沒有留言:
張貼留言