Vol. 19, Issue 1, 2010March 01, 2010 PDT
“Per Se” or Not “Per Se” – A Historical “Quick Look” at Minimum RPM Under California Law
“Per Se” or Not “Per Se” – A Historical “Quick Look” at Minimum RPM Under California Law
Don T. Hibner Jr., Heather M. Cooper,
Articles in Vol. 19, Issue 1, 2010
Vol. 19, Issue 1, 2010
- REVERSE-PAYMENT SETTLEMENTS IN BRAND v. GENERIC PHARMACEUTICAL PATENT LITIGATIONAsim M. Bhansali
- Loyalty Discounts and the FTC’s Lawsuit Against IntelJarod M. Bona
- Davis v. Ford Motor Credit Company: More Confusion Regarding The Definition Of “Unfair” Or An Indication Of Growing Consensus?Eric P. Enson
- “Per Se” or Not “Per Se” – A Historical “Quick Look” at Minimum RPM Under California LawDon T. Hibner Jr.Heather M. Cooper
- The Law On Predatory Pricing In CaliforniaAra Jabagchourian
- UCL Class Certification After In re Tobacco II CasesNeal PotischmanMark KokanovichJulie Epley
- SECTION 5 OF THE FTC ACT: DARK CLOUD OR SILVER LINING?Marcy C. Priedeman
- KEARNS v. FORD MOTOR CO. AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR PLEADING CONSUMER FRAUD CASES IN FEDERAL COURT AFTER TOBACCO IIDaveed A. Schwartz
Don T. Hibner & Heather M. Cooper, “Per Se” or Not “Per Se” – A Historical “Quick Look” at Minimum RPM Under California Law, 19 Competition Journal (2010).