main points:
In foreign trade investigations with China,the discriminatory treatment originally targeted at state-owned enterprises has extended to the entire industry under investigation or downstream industries.In this regard,Chinese enterprises and the government should be prepared for a long-term and arduous game.

Introduction:Since the beginning of 2004,he has become a practicing lawyer and has rich legal practice experience,specializing in construction engineering and real estate,corporate mergers and acquisitions,cultural creativity,and other professional legal fields.He has been or is working for China Resources Group,McDonald's China headquarters,Bank of China Hong Kong,Beijing Construction Engineering,Guangzhou Shenzhen Railway,Liantai Group,Shenzhen Zhongzhou Group,Shenzhen Wealth Group,Shenzhen Tianli Group,Shenzhen Golden Guanghua Group,Haijixing Hengming Real Estate Group,Fenghuo Creativity,Seeing Culture,etc.provide professional legal services.

Huawei should not be surprised by the fact that Ms.Meng has been detained and faces extradition.The duration of bail hearings and the conditions of bail appear to be relatively harsh and rare.In fact,Canadian courts rarely refuse bail,except for a few highly harmful and malignant criminal offences.The Canadian Federal Criminal Code does not provide for discriminatory treatment even for non residents who are formally charged with criminal charges,based on the principle of the presumption of innocence.Ms.Meng has not even been criminally charged or convicted by the United States.This is a prerequisite for requesting extradition and arrest.These prerequisites are not met.The party requesting extradition clearly relies on the"temporary arrest"clause of Article 11 of the US Canada Extradition Treaty,"Emergency Moments".If the United States Department of Justice cannot submit the documents and evidence required by the treaty within 45 days,the Canadian courts must restore Meng's personal freedom.Fortunately and unfortunately,bail and extradition defenses require a high level of defense,requiring not only a comprehensive understanding and analysis of the integrity and reliability of extradition documents in a very short period of time,but also a profound understanding of the political and economic factors in the relations of the relevant countries,and a good and spotless legal counsel practice record.In addition to the court systems of both countries,extradition cases also directly involve the administrative,diplomatic,and law enforcement departments of at least two countries.The extradition law is ancient and brand new,belonging to the modern cold weapon.A slight carelessness may turn a live case into a dead case,making it difficult to overturn it.

On May 31, 2018, the Court of Justice of the EU made a preliminary ruling in the Ernst&Young P/S v Konkurrencer ä det case. 2 The European Court held that the control of concentration of operators in Article 7, paragraph 1, of the EU Regulation on Mergers and Acquisitions ("preemptive"), It should be interpreted as "a certain concentration should be implemented by only one exchange, and the transaction will lead to the transfer of control of the target enterprise in whole or in part, in fact, or in law. Regardless of whether the termination of the cooperation agreement has had market effects, the termination of the cooperation agreement in this case should not be considered as a situation that can lead to a certain concentration implementation.". Therefore, the European Court of Justice held that the termination of the cooperation agreement involved in this case should not be regarded as a "preemption".

This month,the United States will announce its decision on whether to initiate a"dual anti"investigation into China's passenger cars and light truck tires.If the United States launches a"double anti"investigation,the Chinese tire market will face tremendous pressure.Relevant enterprises should be prepared to respond to the positive factors in this case and strive for a favorable outcome to the greatest extent.

On March 19th,the US International Trade Commission(ITC)announced that it would terminate the review of antitrust litigation points in the US 337 investigation of China Steel.So far,after nearly two years of hard defense,the case has ended with the comprehensive victory of the Chinese responding enterprise.

[Brief Introduction to the Case]

The plaintiff Huang and the defendant Zhang registered their marriage on May 21,2014 and lived in Room 910(hereinafter referred to as Room 910)of a garden community after their marriage.Room 910 was purchased by Zhang on December 9,2008 before marriage and registered under Zhang's name.On July 12,2014,Mr.Huang and Mr.Zhang went to a city notary office to notarize the"Application for Alteration of Mortgage Housing Registration"signed by them,which mainly includes:"Bank of China Limited×××"Branch:Due to our marriage,we need to mortgage the property 910 of your bank in December 2008,and apply for the following matters to occur.Change registration:Zhang has voluntarily added Huang as the co owner of the above property...Zhang and Huang have agreed to assume joint repayment responsibilities,and our registration of changes in the above matters is fully legal and voluntary..."On October 9,2014,Mr.Huang filed a lawsuit to the court requesting a divorce from Mr.Zhang,claiming that the 910 room house belongs to the joint property of the husband and wife and should be divided.During the court trial,Zhang agreed to divorce,but believed that the 910 room house belonged to his personal property,and Huang had no right to request a division.The court also found that the market value of the 910 room house was 1.15 million yuan,and the outstanding loan principal was 302932 yuan.

On November 16,2016,with a notice from the State Administration for Industry and Commerce,the investigation of Tetra Pak's suspected abuse of market dominance,which lasted for 4 and a half years,was finally settled.Although there are also many antitrust cases punished by the industrial and commercial system,past cases have been investigated and dealt with by provincial bureaus authorized by the General Administration.The Tetra Pak case can be described as the first case handled personally by the General Administration.What are the implications of this antitrust case?

After difficult negotiations,the EU's"double anti"investigation into China's photovoltaic industry ended with a"price commitment"plan.Although price commitments are relatively flexible trade measures compared to the imposition of anti-dumping duties,due to the setting of minimum prices for Chinese exports,mainland enterprises that are not competitive in the high-end market have lost significant market share.However,after experiencing the"double anti"storm in Europe and the United States,China's photovoltaic industry has increasingly attached importance to improving quality and technology.With the continuous innovation and improvement of technological level of enterprises,as well as the reasonable guidance of policies,the competitiveness of China's photovoltaic industry will be improved and new development opportunities will be ushered in.