Search for: "SCOTT v. PRICE"
Results 21 - 40
of 651
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Nov 2023, 9:01 pm
From time to time, Scott’s enforcement cases would be assigned to me. [read post]
31 Oct 2023, 10:54 am
Circuit made this point clear in its 2001 FTC v. [read post]
30 Oct 2023, 12:11 pm
Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby. [read post]
2 Oct 2023, 9:50 am
The competition concern is that this pursuit of portfolio returns can disincentivize “business stealing” between the companies in which they have invested.[3] For example, a company might ordinarily lower price or seek innovations to take market share from its competitor. [read post]
20 Sep 2023, 3:03 pm
In American Society for Testing and Materials v. [read post]
20 Sep 2023, 5:50 am
The case is captioned Gambrill v. [read post]
13 Sep 2023, 6:00 am
In 1972, the per se flood crested in U.S. v. [read post]
11 Sep 2023, 6:17 am
Arthur-Price v. [read post]
31 Aug 2023, 5:02 pm
Price [2020] B.C.J. [read post]
27 Aug 2023, 3:00 am
& Appliance v. [read post]
24 Jul 2023, 3:59 pm
[54] New Classic Cases – Falstaff The new Guidelines cite U.S. v. [read post]
14 Jul 2023, 1:22 pm
In addition, the Judge noticed that the deal plan evaluation model presented to the Microsoft Board of Directors to justify the Activision purchase price (iv) relied on PlayStation sales and other non-Microsoft platforms post-acquisition, and (v) reflected access to mobile content as a critical factor in favor of the deal. [read post]
8 Jul 2023, 4:33 pm
On the cost side, the now-indispensable economics experts might charge, in a private case, millions and even tens of millions of dollars to define the relevant market, compute the “but for” price of the goods or services in question, prove the losses resulting from anticompetitive conduct, establish that common elements of proof will predominate over individual proof, and disprove the inevitable theoretical pro-competitive justifications for facially anticompetitive… [read post]
30 Jun 2023, 10:41 am
Yesterday's closing argument in Federal Trade Commission v. [read post]
19 Jun 2023, 5:47 am
From Gregory v. [read post]
19 Jun 2023, 4:52 am
They then swiftly abandon the project once the prices hit a high ceiling and transfer the funds to their various digital wallets.[5] Those who invested in the project are not given anything they were promised and “ghosted” by the developers. [read post]
26 May 2023, 6:30 am
Cheffins and Bobby V. [read post]
26 May 2023, 6:30 am
Cheffins and Bobby V. [read post]
10 May 2023, 5:58 am
Darby Scott, Ltd. v Michael S. [read post]
5 May 2023, 9:40 am
According to the SEC in the challenged order, the claimants are entitled to an award based only on what the SEC actually collected prior to the bankruptcy (Barr v. [read post]
