| In August1,2008, the People’s Republic of China’s anti-monopoly law was implemented. In March18,2009, China’s anti-monopoly law enforcement agency, named the Ministry of Commerce of the State Council, made negative decision on the case of Coca-Cola Company to buy Huiyuan Juice Company", in the grounds of violation of AML centralized system operators. That is the case prohibited by the Ministry of Commerce from the implemented of China’s anti-monopoly law.In one part of the first chapter, this article presents profiles about Coca-Cola Company and Huiyuan Juice Company, besides, the course of the decision made by the Ministry of Commerce. In the second part of this chapter, four reasons are mentioned to ban Coca-Cola acquire Huiyuan Juice Company by the Ministry of Commerce. Firstly, beverages are alternative provided by the two companies to the market. Secondly, the acquisition motive which may lead to results of restrictions of competition is suspected. Thirdly, the acquisition will restrict competition in the juice beverage market. The last but not the least, similar case occurred in Australia has confirmed the truth that China is not the first country to prohibit the Concentration.In the second chapter, this article puts forwards to many relevant concepts and reasons why this case against centralized system operators, at the same time, and analyzes several issues about the system of centralized operators, such as the issue of dominant market position and the definition of the relevant market. In the third chapter, many defects are noted about China’s system of centralized operators, for example the low level of the transparency and unsound of system about reporting burden of proof and so on. In view of this, this thesis puts forward several approaches, such as introducing Herfindahl Index to estimate the degree of Concentration and new methods to assist to investigate facts of centralized operators and new ways to strengthen information disclosure. |
PDF Full Text Request