Vol. 22, Issue 2, 2013September 01, 2013 PDT
INDIRECT PURCHASER STANDING UNDER CALIFORNIA ANTITRUST LAW AND FEDERAL ANTITRUST LAW: DEFENSE PERSPECTIVE
INDIRECT PURCHASER STANDING UNDER CALIFORNIA ANTITRUST LAW AND FEDERAL ANTITRUST LAW: DEFENSE PERSPECTIVE
David C. Kiernan, Lin W. Kahn,
Articles in Vol. 22, Issue 2, 2013
Vol. 22, Issue 2, 2013
- INDIRECT PURCHASER STANDING UNDER CALIFORNIA ANTITRUST LAW AND FEDERAL ANTITRUST LAW: PLAINTIFF PERSPECTIVEChristopher T. Micheletti
- INDIRECT PURCHASER STANDING UNDER CALIFORNIA ANTITRUST LAW AND FEDERAL ANTITRUST LAW: DEFENSE PERSPECTIVEDavid C. KiernanLin W. Kahn
- PROVING WRONGFUL PURPOSE UNDER THE UNFAIR PRACTICES ACT: PLAINTIFF AND DEFENSE PERSPECTIVESAra JabagchourianDavid Meyer
- UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE PRACTICES: A COMPARISON OF THE FTC ACT AND CALIFORNIA’S UCLMichael ThurmaLenore Albert
- MERGER ENFORCEMENTRobert B. McNaryMarisa E. Adelson
- MASK FOR THE GUILTY AND SHIELD FOR THE INNOCENT: THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELFINCRIMINATION IN FEDERAL AND CALIFORNIA ANTITRUST CASESDylan I. Ballard
- WHY CALIFORNIA’S PER SE RULE AGAINST RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE IS GOOD FOR BUSINESSES AND CONSUMERSDavid W. KesselmanTrevor V. Stockinger
- RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE AFTER LEEGIN: DEFENSE PERSPECTIVEJohn R. FooteErnest N. Reddick
- RHETORIC VS. REALITY: AN ASSESSMENT OF TRENDS IN CIVIL NON-MERGER ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT COMPARING THE BUSH AND OBAMA ADMINISTRATIONS.D. Bruce Hoffman
- ENSURING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE MEDICATION: THE SUPREME COURT’S OPINION IN F.T.C. V. ACTAVIS, INC.Ralph B. KalfayanVic A. Merjanian
- FTC V. ACTAVIS: ANTITRUST LITIGATION OVER “REVERSE-PAYMENT” PHARMACEUTICAL PATENT SETTLEMENTSStuart N. SenatorRohit K. Singla
David C. Kiernan & Lin W. Kahn, INDIRECT PURCHASER STANDING UNDER CALIFORNIA ANTITRUST LAW AND FEDERAL ANTITRUST LAW: DEFENSE PERSPECTIVE, 22 Competition Journal (2013).