This article published in the George Mason Law Review, compares the analyses, results, and outcomes in mergers analyzed in the United States and China in the early days of the Chinese Merger Law (AML) and currently to understand the trajectory of cross-jurisdictional differences since 2008. The authors seek to understand: (1) how economics has informed regulatory analysis in the United States and in China about the potential effects of a proposed transaction on competition and consumers; (2) whether and to what extent economic analyses differed across the two jurisdictions; (3) how those differences have changed over time; and (4) what one can learn from these experiences to help anticipate concerns and outcomes going forward.
Assessing umbrella pricing incentives
When collusive agreements involve a subset of firms in an industry, they may create the incentive and ability for firms that are not participants in the cartel...