Vol. 22, Issue 2, 2013September 01, 2013 PDT
WHY CALIFORNIA’S PER SE RULE AGAINST RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE IS GOOD FOR BUSINESSES AND CONSUMERS
WHY CALIFORNIA’S PER SE RULE AGAINST RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE IS GOOD FOR BUSINESSES AND CONSUMERS
David W. Kesselman, Trevor V. Stockinger,
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 W. Kesselman & Trevor V. Stockinger, WHY CALIFORNIA’S PER SE RULE AGAINST RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE IS GOOD FOR BUSINESSES AND CONSUMERS, 22 Competition Journal (2013).