Antitrust/Competition Consent Orders in Korea

in 2011, the Korean National Assembly passed, along with the Korea-U.S. FTA and related bills, a law that  allows the Fair Trade Commission of Korea (KFTC) to accept consent orders.  A consent order is similar, in many respects, to a nolo contendere plea. The consent order process has allowed the KFTC to punish without the admission of guilt to the company. This has lead to a decrease, in recent years, of a burden on the KFTC, more efficient enforcement proceedings, and has sped up many M & A deals – while allowing companies doing business in Korea to more adequately gauge the risk of a certain actions by the company. The disposition is similar, in a criminal matter, to a nolo contendere (no contest).  In short, the accused accepts the proposed punishment, however, doesn’t admit guilt. Thus, the company may save a little face and time, while the government is

Continue reading

Korean FTC Criminal Referral Guidelines: Monopoly & Franchise Korean Law Updates

The Fair Trade Commission of Korea (“Korean FTC” or “KFTC”) amended the Korean FTC’s Criminal Referral Guidelines (“Amended Guidelines”) to motivate more active and aggressive enforcement of Korea’s Franchise, Monopoly and other related laws.  We have seen a much more active enforcement of Korean law by the Korean FTC and expect more criminal referrals. The Amended KFTC’s Criminal Referral Guidelines places a very low threshold for referring a case for a criminal prosecution of employees and companies.  The Amended Guidelines are effective since April 9, 2018. Prior to the present amendment, the prior Guidelines emphasized on, mainly, making criminal referral against key management and company representatives that were alleged to have taken in part in “high level” violations.  The Amended Guidelines places a bulls eye also non-management employees and lowers the threshold for referring a case for prosecution. The Guidelines notes that adjudicating officers shall look, mainly, to: (a) the

Continue reading

Abuse of Market Dominance in Korea: Competition Law in Korea

The Seoul Central District Court ruled earlier this year that Namyang Dairy Products Co. (“Namyang”) was in violation of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act of Korea by abusing its market dominance and “unfairly taking advantage” of retailers. For more Antitrust/Competition Law articles please click on the labels noted Antitrust Law on the right. Namyang, a major Korean dairy company, was accused by retailers of, among other things, forcing retailers to purchase expired or soon to expire products and purchase unpopular products.  The Seoul Central District Court in 2014GaHab592238 ruled the company was in violation of Article 23 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act of Korea and awarded damages to the plaintiffs. Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act of Korea Article 23(1), no. 4 prohibits a company or individual from: “Trading with a certain transacting partner by unfairly taking advantage of his/her position in trade.” The Court

Continue reading