...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>The Antitrust Bulletin >The Effectiveness of Private Enforcement and Class Actions to Secure Antitrust Enforcement
【24h】

The Effectiveness of Private Enforcement and Class Actions to Secure Antitrust Enforcement

机译：私人执法和集体诉讼对反托拉斯执法的有效性

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The U.S. system has relied heavily on antitrust class actions as a means of ensuring compensation and deterrence. Although this tool seems sensible in theory, the reality is that it remains highly controversial. On the one hand, commentators argue that class actions force defendants to settle cases lacking merit. Even if a settlement agreement is assumed to have a merit, class actions are accused of doing a poor job in compensating victims and deterring wrongdoers. On the other hand, the proponents of class actions claim that there is no reliable empirical evidence proving that class action schemes caused negative effects on antitrust litigation. The public debate about the effectiveness of class actions illustrate the controversial nature of American class actions fairly well. Therefore, using comparative insights from the predominant controversies, this study will determine how well antitrust class actions fulfill compensation objectives and to what extent they can facilitate deterrence.
机译：美国系统在很大程度上依赖于反托拉斯集体诉讼，以确保补偿和威慑。尽管此工具在理论上看来是明智的，但现实是它仍然存在很大争议。一方面，评论员认为，集体诉讼迫使被告解决缺乏功绩的案件。即使和解协议被认为具有优点，集体诉讼也被指控在补偿受害者和阻止不法行为上做得不好。另一方面，集体诉讼的支持者声称，没有可靠的经验证据证明集体诉讼方案对反托拉斯诉讼产生了负面影响。关于集体诉讼有效性的公开辩论很好地说明了美国集体诉讼的争议性质。因此，利用来自主要争议的比较见解，本研究将确定反托拉斯集体诉讼在多大程度上实现了补偿目标，以及在多大程度上可以促进威慑。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号