Allocating costs in Ninth Circuit predatory pricing cases:Marsann Co. v. Brammall, Inc.and its problematic progeny,Inglis v. Continental Baking and Thales v. Matsushita

C. Paul Wazzan; H.E. Frech III

首页> 外文期刊>The Antitrust Bulletin >Allocating costs in Ninth Circuit predatory pricing cases:Marsann Co. v. Brammall, Inc.and its problematic progeny,Inglis v. Continental Baking and Thales v. Matsushita

【24h】

Allocating costs in Ninth Circuit predatory pricing cases:Marsann Co. v. Brammall, Inc.and its problematic progeny,Inglis v. Continental Baking and Thales v. Matsushita

机译：在第九巡回掠夺性定价案中分配成本：Marsann Co.诉Brammall，Inc.及其有问题的后代，Inglis诉Continental Baking和Thales诉Matsushita

获取原文

获取原文并翻译 | 示例

掌桥外文数据库（机构版） >>

开具论文收录证明 >>

文献代查 >>

页面导航

摘要
著录项
相似文献
相关主题

摘要

Predatory pricing remains an active area in antitrust law, and cases continue to be brought before federal and state courts, causing the economics of predatory pricing to be revisited with some frequency.1Recent cases include Bay Guardian Co., Inc. v. NT Media LLC2; Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Hillenbrand Industries, Inc.3; LePage's Inc. v. 3M Co.4; and United States v. AMR Corp.5 A key concept in these cases is whether prices were set below some measure of costs, a threshold issue in predatory pricing analysis.6

机译：掠夺性定价仍然是反托拉斯法中的一个活跃领域，并且案件不断提交联邦和州法院审理，导致掠夺性定价的经济性得到了重新审视。1最近的案例包括Bay Guardian Co.，Inc.诉NT Media LLC2。 ; Kinetic Concepts，Inc.诉Hillenbrand Industries，Inc.3； LePage's Inc.诉3M Co.4；和United States v。AMR Corp.5。在这些案例中，一个关键概念是价格是否设置为低于某种成本度量标准，这是掠夺性定价分析中的一个门槛问题。6

著录项

来源
《The Antitrust Bulletin》 |2009年第3期|p.651-681|共31页
作者
C. Paul Wazzan; H.E. Frech III;
展开▼
作者单位

LECG, LLC, Los Angeles, California;

Department of Economics, University of California, Santa Barbara;

展开▼
收录信息
原文格式 PDF
正文语种 eng
中图分类
关键词

相似文献

外文文献

1. South Coast Air Quality Management District v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Ninth Circuit Holds Reliance on Problematic State Agency Standard Satisfies NEPA [J] . Alexander J. Bandza Ecology law quarterly . 2011,第2期

机译：南海岸空气质量管理区诉联邦能源管理委员会：第九巡回法庭依靠有问题的国家机构标准满足NEPA
2. ANTITRUST—PREDATORY PRICING—SIXTH CIRCUIT INCORRECTLY USES POST-CHICAGO ECONOMICS AND ANALYSIS OF NON-PRICE PREDATION TO OVERTURN SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED TO AN ANTITRUST DEFENDANT: SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC. V. NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC. [J] . Casey Burton Journal of Air Law and Commerce . 2007,第2期

机译：反垄断性定价是第六条电路，不恰当地使用了后芝加哥时期的经济分析和对非价格预测的分析，以推翻对反垄断者的简易判决：SPIRIT AIRLINES，INC。诉西北航空公司。
3. United States v. AMR Corp.: Non-Traditional Cost Measures and Expanding Predatory Pricing Exposure [O] . Bell Robert, Greenfield Lee, Kayne Veronica, 2003

机译：美国诉AMR公司：非传统成本计量和扩大掠夺性定价风险

Allocating costs in Ninth Circuit predatory pricing cases:Marsann Co. v. Brammall, Inc.and its problematic progeny,Inglis v. Continental Baking and Thales v. Matsushita

摘要

著录项

相似文献

相关主题

期刊订阅