Insights | Kobre & Kim — Disputes and Investigations

Aggressive antitrust enforcement is a priority for the U.S., both at home and abroad.
Korean companies are on the radar, particularly with alleged procurement fraud, putting them at risk of massive fines and multijurisdictional investigations.
We explain the risks and responses Korean companies should consider.

U.S. government antitrust agencies – including the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division and Federal Trade Commission – have become increasingly aggressive in their enforcement.
While this puts more multinational companies with U.S. links at risk, it could also present an opportunity.
Our team explains how the changing antitrust enforcement environment can provide tools for companies to keep their competitors in check.

More Chinese companies are entering the Korean market, running head-on into family-owned conglomerates known as chaebols.
In a dispute, the overwhelming dominance of chaebols and the intricacies of the Korea legal market make it hard for Chinese companies to find a way out.
However, by combining creative legal and PR strategies, Chinese companies can put pressure on their competitors and protect their business interests.

Korean and U.S. antitrust enforcers are working ever closer together in investigating potential anticompetitive behavior.
Korean companies are at risk – even conduct based entirely in Korea could be scrutinized.
We look at the enforcement hotspots and how Korean companies can deploy an effective multijurisdictional defensive strategy.

South Korea and U.S. antitrust regulators are increasing collaboration in cross-border matters, with the Biden administration gearing up enforcement.
Potential targets include South Korean companies that conduct business with the U.S. Forces Korea (USFK).
Our team explains why an aggressive, multi-jurisdictional defense is necessary to mitigate the risks

Companies often believe that the only remedy for anti-competitive behavior comes from government intervention.
However, as a recent U.S. appeals court decision illustrates, private parties can obtain relief themselves, even against “consummated” mergers approved by government regulators.
This creative strategy is just one of many that companies can deploy by themselves when facing competitive challenges.

A recent meeting between antitrust enforcers from South Korea and the U.S. signals an increase in future collaboration between the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) on cross-border criminal antitrust enforcement.
A greater degree of DOJ-KFTC collaboration will result in increasingly complex multinational antitrust litigation.
When these enforcers take collaborative actions, targets will require equally coordinated defense strategies - likely combining the knowledge of both Korea and U.S. antitrust specialists.

A new Multilateral Framework on Procedures in Competition Law Investigation and Enforcement (MFP) is being finalized.
Although the new MFP will not be binding on all enforcement regimes, the MFP’s compliance mechanisms should incentivize agencies to comply with the common commitments.
This announcement raises five key questions about the future of global antitrust enforcement.