Vol. 25, Issue 1, 2016March 01, 2016 PDT
CONSIDERATIONS, NOT LIMITATIONS: AN ARGUMENT AGAINST DEFINING THE ANTICOMPETITIVE HARM UNDER F.T.C. V. ACTAVIS AS THE “ELIMINATION OF THE RISK OF POTENTIAL COMPETITION”
CONSIDERATIONS, NOT LIMITATIONS: AN ARGUMENT AGAINST DEFINING THE ANTICOMPETITIVE HARM UNDER F.T.C. V. ACTAVIS AS THE “ELIMINATION OF THE RISK OF POTENTIAL COMPETITION”
Anna M. Fabish,
Articles in Vol. 25, Issue 1, 2016
Vol. 25, Issue 1, 2016
- CALIFORNIA ANTITRUST AND UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW UPDATE: PROCEDURAL LAWThomas Greene
- CALIFORNIA ANTITRUST AND UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW UPDATE: SUBSTANTIVE LAWThomas A. Papageorge
- 2015: A YEAR OF BIG PLAINTIFF WINS IN ANTITRUST AND PRIVACY CASESThomas N. Dahdouh
- KEYNOTE ADDRESS: A CONVERSATION WITH THE HONORABLE TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE, CHIEF JUSTICE OF CALIFORNIACheryl Lee JohnsonKathleen J. Tuttle
- GOLDEN STATE INSTITUTE 25TH ANNIVERSARY RETROSPECTIVE AND PROSPECTIVE VIEWS ON CALIFORNIA ANTITRUST AND UNFAIR COMPETITION LAWCraig Corbitt
- MANAGING ANTITRUST AND COMPLEX BUSINESS TRIALS—A VIEW FROM THE BENCHNiall E. Lynch
- THE NEXIUM TRIAL PIONEERS ACTAVIS’ ACTIVATION: A ROUNDTABLE OF NEXIUM’S COUNSEL REFLECT ON THEIR SIX-WEEK TRIALCheryl Lee Johnson
- BIG STAKES ANTITRUST TRIALS: O’BANNON V. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATIONDavid W. Kesselman
- SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATION TACTICS, CONSIDERATIONS AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PROVISIONS IN ANTITRUST AND UCL CASES: A ROUNDTABLEPaul Riehle
- CONSIDERATIONS, NOT LIMITATIONS: AN ARGUMENT AGAINST DEFINING THE ANTICOMPETITIVE HARM UNDER F.T.C. V. ACTAVIS AS THE “ELIMINATION OF THE RISK OF POTENTIAL COMPETITION”Anna M. Fabish
- THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME PEOPLE’S COURT IN QIHOO V. TENCENT AND THE RULE OF LAW IN CHINA: SEEKING TRUTH FROM FACTSEmilio VaraniniFeng Jiang
- ROYAL PRINTING AND THE FTAIARobert E. Freitas
- THE UCL—NOW A MONEY BACK GUARANTEE?Michele Floyd
- FTC DATA SECURITY ENFORCEMENT: ANALYZING THE PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURECrystal N. Skelton
Anna M. Fabish, CONSIDERATIONS, NOT LIMITATIONS: AN ARGUMENT AGAINST DEFINING THE ANTICOMPETITIVE HARM UNDER F.T.C. V. ACTAVIS AS THE “ELIMINATION OF THE RISK OF POTENTIAL COMPETITION,” 25 Competition Journal (2016).