CHINA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Yi Xue, Zhong Lun
and social public welfare. Accordingly, the SPC con - cluded that the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties could not automatically preclude the court from hearing the case and affirmed that the case fell within the court’s jurisdiction. Standards for damages in monopoly cases Determining liability for damages caused by monop - olistic conduct has long been a challenging aspect in the adjudication of monopoly cases. Based on existing rules and judicial practice, the New Judicial Interpretation further refines the calculation methods and considerations for assessing damages in such cases. Article 44 provides that the losses suffered by the plaintiff due to the accused monopolistic con - duct include direct losses, as well as the reduction in obtainable benefits that would have existed with - out the conduct. It also outlines specific factors to be considered when determining these losses, including: • the prices, operating costs, profits, market share, and other metrics of commodities in the relevant market before, during and after the implementation of the alleged monopolistic conduct; • the prices, operating costs, profits, and other met - rics of commodities in comparable markets unaf - fected by the alleged monopolistic conduct; and • the prices, operating costs, profits, market share, and other metrics of comparable business opera - tors unaffected by the alleged monopolistic con - duct. Furthermore, the New Judicial Interpretation clarifies the rules governing courts’ discretion in determining damages when plaintiffs are unable to provide evi - dence establishing the specific amount of their actual losses. Paragraph 3 of Article 44 specifies that if a plaintiff can furnish evidence proving that the alleged monopolistic conduct has caused the plaintiff losses, yet the precise amount of such losses remains unde - terminable, the court may ‒ based on the plaintiff’s claims and the evidence in the case ‒ exercise its discretion to set a reasonable compensation amount. In doing so, the court must take into account fac - tors such as the nature, severity and duration of the alleged monopolistic conduct, as well as the benefits derived therefrom.
In the “Rice Noodle Producers” horizontal monop - oly agreement case adjudicated by the SPC on 29 August 2024, the SPC invoked the provisions on dam - ages calculation rules in the New Judicial Interpreta - tion for the first time to determine the compensation amount that the defendants were obligated to pay to the plaintiff. In this case, the plaintiff ‒ a rice noodle producer ‒ filed a lawsuit against seven rice noodle manufacturing enterprises, alleging that the seven defendants had entered into and implemented hori - zontal monopoly agreements involving price fixing and boycotting transactions. The plaintiff claimed that the alleged horizontal agreement had led to the plaintiff’s operational difficulties and eventual forced shutdown and that the defendants should therefore compensate it for economic losses, including the costs incurred in investing in and constructing production lines. The SPC found that the plaintiff had not submitted evi - dence to prove the extent of the causal link between the alleged monopolistic conduct and the plaintiff’s shutdown, nor had the plaintiff provided relevant evi - dence to substantiate the specific amount of its eco - nomic losses. Consequently, after comprehensively considering factors such as the defendants’ degree of subjective malicious intent, the duration of the horizontal agreement, and the impact on the relevant market, the SPC exercised its discretion to deter - mine the amount of economic losses and reasonable expenses that the defendants were obligated to pay to the plaintiff. Exploring and developing the public interest litigation system The 2022 amendments to the Anti-Monopoly Law introduced the public interest litigation regime for monopolistic conduct. Where such conduct harms the public interest, the people’s procuratorate at or above the level of a city with subordinated districts is empowered to initiate civil public interest litigation. The New Judicial Interpretation further clarifies the governing principles for the monopoly-related public interest litigation cases. Article 12 stipulates that such litigation is to be conducted in accordance with the applicable laws and judicial interpretations on public interest litigation, except where the New Judicial Inter - pretation provides otherwise.
68 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook