China special: the Coke case

Transparency is in Mofcom's interests

May 01, 2009


The Coke decision was political but backed by some promising antitrust analysis. Mofcom now needs to explain it in greater depth

Rachel Evans
Asia editor

Rumours and speculation dogged Coca-Cola's bid for Huiyuan Juice from the beginning. Had the regulator accepted the filing? Had Phase Two begun? Phase One even? What would China decide? The attempted acquisition was like a soap opera, keeping companies, lawyers and journalists on the edge of their seats.

Away from the decision-making, commentators declared the merger a test case for China's Anti-Monopoly Law and indicative of regulatory attitude to future deals. So when the deal was finally prohibited on March 18, the hype was such that any outcome would have prompted both protest and praise.

Predictably, some labelled it political and protectionist and others held it up as a clinical procedure articulating legitimate antitrust concerns. Both are partial truths. While politics should not affect a competition decision, no sphere of life in China is apolitical. It seems likely that politics played some role. But it is encouraging...




"The culture is not to disclose. And that’s partly driven by the rules"

The SFC's Martin Wheatley on the problem of disclosure in Hong Kong

Web seminars

US and EU hybrid capital
February 3 2010
The future of hybrids, in a popular discussion between IFLR, Morrison & Foerster and Calyon

Latest Issue

March 2010

Basel III: The revenge of Basel
New Basel rules are affecting everyone differently. In the UK banks are worried about grandfathering, in Germany the headache is hybrids and in the US it's risk structures. Meanwhile Japan has some tips and Hong Kong structured its first hybrid [more]