Jim Jeffs: The art of communication

How many lawyers work in-house at Intel in China, and how do you see this changing over the next 12 months?

In China specifically we have over a dozen attorneys plus a couple of paralegals. We also have several very capable administrative support staff. Some of them have regionwide responsibilities and some deal only with China specific issues. I do not see that changing appreciably in the next 12 months.

In addition to competition law, what are the main areas of focus for Intel's in-house team in China?

We have attorneys working on a wide variety of issues. Examples include sales, marketing, manufacturing, design, engineering, foreign investment, litigation, etc.

For competition law in China, to what extent do you outsource work and to which law firms?

We work very closely with a couple of law firms in Beijing which provide us with counsel and advice to supplement the in-house capabilities we have. Primary responsibility for providing this advice lies with me and with my colleague in China.

How do you view the development of competition law in China, in light of the Anheuser-Busch/InBev, Coke/Huiyuan Juice, and Mitsubishi/Lucite decisions?

AML enforcement in China is developing very rapidly and one aspect of that development is in the area of merger control. The three decisions mentioned are the three most recent, high profile merger cases. Although these are the first merger cases to receive a lot of attention in the press, Mofcom in fact has a fair amount of experience prior to the passage of the AML in dealing with foreign companies acquiring Chinese companies. Based on these three decisions, we are able to start understanding Mofcom's policies and implementation of merger control under the AML.

The other primary areas of competition law will be administered by SAIC and NDRC and include monopoly agreements and abuse of dominant position. So far, we have not seen any cases of enforcement of these parts of the AML, so it is difficult to assess where SAIC and NDRC are, and where they are going.

Anti-monopoly decisions appear to be more transparent with each case. What further clarity would you like to see from Mofcom with its next major decision?

For competition law practitioners, the more information we can get on the reasoning behind the decisions Mofcom has made the better we are able to advise our clients on potential mergers and acquisitions. In the Mitsubishi/Lucite decision, Mofcom provided more information on its decision making analysis than it had in some prior cases. The more information Mofcom can provide the better it will be.

The new Obama administration has said it will introduce greater antitrust scrutiny and heavier enforcement in the US. Meanwhile, EU antitrust authorities in Brussels recently levied on Intel its largest ever single fine for anticompetitive behaviour. How do you see the potential regulatory impact of Beijing moving forward?

Because Intel is in the process of appealing the EU decision, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on this.

What steps has the Company taken to address the potential regulatory impact of Beijing?

Earlier I had talked about the desirability for Mofcom to provide as much information as it can relative to its merger decisions. The same thing applies going the other way. All companies, in dealing with the AML enforcement agencies, should try to be as open and straightforward as they can. If companies can develop an open relationship with these agencies, it should minimise miscommunication between them and facilitate a smooth, speedy resolution of any issues that may arise.