,Click to edit Master title style,*,JUFE Yu Ling,Click to edit Master text styles,Second level,Third level,Fourth level,Fifth level,JUFE Yu Ling,Click to edit Master title style,Click to edit Master text styles,Second level,Third level,Fourth level,Fifth level,*,JUFE Yu Ling,Click to edit Master title style,Click to edit Master text styles,Second level,Third level,Fourth level,Fifth level,*,*,1,Part 2,Antimonopoly Law:Chinese Perspective,1Part 2,Lecture Procedures,Leading:writing practices (10mins),Class Presentation (25mins),Summary (5mins),Questions&Assignment (5mins),Lecture Procedures,Activity:writing practices,Activity:writing practices,4,Cases,(1)Report,Christmas tree price fixing scandal in Denmark(2007),(2)Brief to case,Continental TV Inc.v.GTE Sylvania,Inc.(1977).,Leegin Creative Leather Products,Inc.v.PSKS,Inc.,551 U.S.877(2007).,4Cases(1)Report,Learning Objectives,(1)Define Vertical Agreements,(2)Explain the Basic Theory of RPM,Explain Leegin Creative Leather Products v.PSKS 2007,(5)Explain RPM,(6)Case study,Learning Objectives(1)Define,6,Chapter 4,Monopoly Agreements 2,6Chapter 4,1.Vertical agreements,Buyer,Seller,Buyer,Buyer,(1)Definition,Among business operators up or down the supply chain from one another.,At different levels of the production or distribution chain.,1.Vertical agreementsBuyerSel,(2)The statutes,Art.14 Business operators are prohibited from reaching any of the following monopoly agreements with their trading parties:,1.Fixing the price of commodities for resale to a third party;,2.Restricting the minimum price of commodities for resale to a third party;or,3.Other monopoly agreements as determined by the Anti-monopoly Law Enforcement Agency under the State Council.,8,(2)The statutes Art.14 Busin,2.,Resale Price Maintenance Agreements,(,RPM),(1)Definition,It is an agreement between a manufacturer and a distributor or retailer in which the manufacturer specifies the retail price at which retailers must sell products furnished by the manufacturer or distributor.,9,2.Resale Price Maintenance Ag,(2)Class Presentation,(2)Class Presentation,11,Continental TV Inc.v.GTE Sylvania,Inc.(1977),11Continental TV Inc.v.GTE S,12,Leegin Creative Leather Products,Inc.v.PSKS,Inc.,551 U.S.877(2007),12Leegin Creative Leather Prod,(3)Activity:case study,(3)Activity:case study,14,Introduction,On 22 Feb,2013,NDRC released the decision to impose penalties on Moutai and Wuliangye,the two most famous Chinese producer of premium liquor,for administering resale price maintenance(“RPM”)of RMB 247 million and RMB 202 million respectively.,The official statement pointed out that the two companies fixed the minimum resale price to third-party distributors and punished those selling the products at a lower price.The conduct constituted a vertical monopoly agreement in violation of Article 14 of the AML,eliminated and restricted competition in the market and harmed consumer interests.,14Introduction,To collect NDRCs Administrative Punishment Decisions to Moutai and Wuliangye for RPM.,Compare these two Administrative Punishment Decisions.,You will be divided into 5 groups.Each group is required to write an essay and make a presentation almost fifteen minutes.,Your presentation must focus on,Brief to case,（,issues,）,Which judicial doctrine should be applied?,What are the differences to the plaintiff?,Expected Outcome,To collect NDRCs Administrati,情,案,简,介,第一部分 纵向垄断协议,第一组,茅台禁止降价案,情案简介第一部分 纵向垄断协议茅台禁止降价案,1,、茅台从禁止涨价变成禁止降价,背景：,2012,年末，塑化剂风波，“两会”饱遭舆论质疑，茅台终端价自春节,2200,元左右瞬间下跌,30%,。此后，政府明令限制“三公”消费，而更糟糕的是整体宏观经济形势的影响，茅台价格已长期疲软连续走低，而原本能够让价格上涨的春节窗口期也因突发的塑化剂事件或将关闭。,此前，茅台是不能够控制经销商擅自加价销售的典型。,一场关系茅台酒生命线的战役已然开始：价格守卫战。,12,月,18,日，茅台集团在山东济南举行,2012,年全国经销商大会，公司高层在会上以近乎训斥的口吻警告旗下经销商，必须守住价格底线。,茅台要求，,53,度飞天茅台的终端零售价不能低于,1519,元,/,瓶，而团购价不能低于,1400,元,/,瓶。,同时，茅台对,3,家低价销售和串货的经销商开出罚单，暂停执行茅台酒合同计划，并扣减,20%,保证金、提出警告。,2024/11/17,1、茅台从禁止涨价变成禁止降价背景：2012年末，塑化剂风波,贵州物价局关于“茅台价格垄断罚款”公告,（,2013,年第,1,号）,2012,年以来，贵州省茅台酒销售有限公司通过合同约定，对经销商向第三人销售茅台酒的最低价格进行限定，对低价销售茅台酒的行为给予处罚，达成并实施了茅台酒销售价格的纵向垄断协议，违反了,反垄断法,第十四条规定，排除和限制了市场竞争，损害了消费者的利益。贵州茅台酒销售有限公司的上述行为受到调查后，该公司积极配合调查，主动退还违法扣减的保证金，按照法律要求及时进行了深入整改。鉴于以上事实，对该公司依法处以,2.47,亿元的罚款。,贵州省物价局,2013,年,2,月,22,日,贵州物价局关于“茅台价格垄断罚款”公告（2013年第1号）,四川物价局关于“五粮液价格垄断罚款”公告,2009,年以来，五粮液公司通过书面或网络的形式，与全国,3200,多家具有独立法人资格的经销商达成协议，限定向第三人转售五粮液白酒的最低价格，并通过业务限制、扣减合同计划、扣除保证金、扣除市场支持费用、罚款等方式对不执行最低限价的经销商予以处罚。,2011,年，公司给予四川一家大型连锁超市停止供货的处罚，迫使超市承诺不再低于规定价格销售五粮液产品。,2012,年，公司对北京、天津、河北、辽宁、吉林、黑龙江、山东、湖南、四川、云南、贵州等,11,省市的,14,家经销商“低价、跨区、跨渠道违规销售五粮液”行为，给予扣除违约金、扣除市场支持费用等处罚。,五粮液公司利用自身的市场强势地位，通过合同约定、价格管控、区域监督、考核奖惩、终端控制等方式，对经销商向第三人销售白酒的最低价格进行限定，达成并实施了白酒销售价格的纵向垄断协议，违反了,反垄断法,第十四条规定，排除和限制了市场竞争，损害了消费者的利益。,2024/11/17,四川物价局关于“五粮液价格垄断罚款”公告2009年以来，五,四川物价局关于“五粮液价格垄断罚款”公告,五粮液公司作为白酒龙头企业，享有极高的品牌效应和消费者忠诚度，公司实施的价格垄断行为对市场公平竞争、经济运行效率和消费者利益具有多方面,不利影响,：一是,排除了同一品牌内各个经销商之间的竞,争。五粮液公司通过限定转售白酒的最低价格实施品牌内部限制，制定实施了一整套严格的监督考核和惩罚措施，排除了经销商之间的价格竞争，损害了经济运行效率。二是,限制了白酒行业不同品牌之间的竞争,。五粮液公司的价格垄断行为在行业内起到了负面的示范效应，已经有其他白酒品牌开始对经销商进行类似限制和处罚，进一步扩大了对竞争的限制和损害。三是,损害了消费者利,益。五粮液公司设定最低限价，排除了消费者购买低价商品的机会。特别是五粮液在浓香型白酒中具有重要地位，产品可替代性低，