Vol. 14, Issue 1, 2005March 01, 2005 PDT
IS UCL FRAUD NOW AKIN TO COMMON LAW FRAUD? RELIANCE, MATERIALITY AND CAUSATION AFTER PROPOSITION 64
IS UCL FRAUD NOW AKIN TO COMMON LAW FRAUD? RELIANCE, MATERIALITY AND CAUSATION AFTER PROPOSITION 64
Andrew B. Serwin, Russell L. Carlberg,
Articles in Vol. 14, Issue 1, 2005
Vol. 14, Issue 1, 2005
- PRIVATE “REPRESENTATIVE ACTIONS” UNDER CALIFORNIA’S UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW AFTER PROPOSITION 64: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSISGerald E. HawxhurstKevin Y. Teruya
- PROPOSITION 64 DOES NOT APPLY TO PENDING CASESBonny E. Sweeney
- PROPOSITION 64 APPLIES TO PENDING CASESThomas S. Hixson
- IS UCL FRAUD NOW AKIN TO COMMON LAW FRAUD? RELIANCE, MATERIALITY AND CAUSATION AFTER PROPOSITION 64Andrew B. SerwinRussell L. Carlberg
- PROBLEMS IN PARTNERING WITH PUBLIC PROSECUTORSBarbara M. Motz
- HAVE UNFAIR COMPETITION CLAIMS BECOME “FEDERALIZED” AFTER PROPOSITION 64 AND THE CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT?Amy DarbyAmy Maclear
- CALIFORNIA ANTITRUST AND UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW UPDATEThomas GreeneThomas A. Papageorge
Andrew B. Serwin & Russell L. Carlberg, IS UCL FRAUD NOW AKIN TO COMMON LAW FRAUD? RELIANCE, MATERIALITY AND CAUSATION AFTER PROPOSITION 64, 14 Competition Journal (2005).