Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Antitrust (3)
- FTC (3)
- Drugs (2)
- FDIC (2)
- Hatch-Waxman (2)
-
- Innovation (2)
- Op-Eds (2)
- Paragraph IV (2)
- Patent (2)
- Pay for delay (2)
- Pharmaceuticals (2)
- Regulation (2)
- Reverse payment (2)
- Settlement (2)
- Antitrust, Industrial Organization, and Competition Policy (1)
- Business Cycle (1)
- Credit (1)
- DOJ (1)
- Derivative Contracts (1)
- Economic Cycle (1)
- FIRA (1)
- Finance (1)
- Hart-Scott-Rodino (1)
- Mergers and acquisition (1)
- Recovery (1)
- Risk Management (1)
- Section 2 (1)
- Sherman Act (1)
- Unilateral Conduct (1)
- Volker (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Business
Activating Actavis, Aaron Edlin, C. Scott Hemphill, Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Carl Shapiro
Activating Actavis, Aaron Edlin, C. Scott Hemphill, Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Carl Shapiro
Aaron Edlin
In Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., the Supreme Court provided fundamental guidance about how courts should handle antitrust challenges to reverse payment patent settlements. The Court came down strongly in favor of an antitrust solution to the problem, concluding that “an antitrust action is likely to prove more feasible administratively than the Eleventh Circuit believed.” At the same time, Justice Breyer’s majority opinion acknowledged that the Court did not answer every relevant question. The opinion closed by “leav[ing] to the lower courts the structuring of the present rule-of-reason antitrust litigation.”This article is an effort to help courts and counsel …
Actavis And Error Costs: A Reply To Critics, Aaron S. Edlin, C. Scott Hemphill, Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Carl Shapiro
Actavis And Error Costs: A Reply To Critics, Aaron S. Edlin, C. Scott Hemphill, Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Carl Shapiro
Aaron Edlin
The Supreme Court’s opinion in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. provided fundamental guidance about how courts should handle antitrust challenges to reverse payment patent settlements. In our previous article, Activating Actavis, we identified and operationalized the essential features of the Court’s analysis. Our analysis has been challenged by four economists, who argue that our approach might condemn procompetitive settlements.As we explain in this reply, such settlements are feasible, however, only under special circumstances. Moreover, even where feasible, the parties would not actually choose such a settlement in equilibrium. These considerations, and others discussed in the reply, serve to confirm …
It Works For Mergers, Why Not Finance, Aaron S. Edlin, Richard J. Gilbert
It Works For Mergers, Why Not Finance, Aaron S. Edlin, Richard J. Gilbert
Aaron Edlin
No abstract provided.
Quashing The Financial Firestorm, Aaron S. Edlin
Quashing The Financial Firestorm, Aaron S. Edlin
Aaron Edlin
Start the financial rescue with containment, establish unlimited deposit insurance and continuous access to funds, then move to a well thought-out plan to quash the financial flames.
Academic Testimony On Unilateral Conduct Before The U.S. Dept. Of Justice & Federal Trade Commission Hearings, Aaron S. Edlin
Academic Testimony On Unilateral Conduct Before The U.S. Dept. Of Justice & Federal Trade Commission Hearings, Aaron S. Edlin
Aaron Edlin
No abstract provided.