交换费诉讼和解之建议分析

Adam J. Levitin
{"title":"交换费诉讼和解之建议分析","authors":"Adam J. Levitin","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2133361","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper is a brief analysis of the proposed class settlement in In re Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1720 (E.D.N.Y.). The analysis concludes that the relief plaintiff class members would obtain from the proposed settlement is largely illusory. The settlement does not result in meaningful reform of the interchange fee system and appears to provide less relief than would likely result from continued litigation. In short, the settlement is a bad deal for merchant plaintiffs and the public at large.","PeriodicalId":198490,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown Law Center Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series","volume":"59 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Analysis of the Proposed Interchange Fee Litigation Settlement\",\"authors\":\"Adam J. Levitin\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2133361\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper is a brief analysis of the proposed class settlement in In re Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1720 (E.D.N.Y.). The analysis concludes that the relief plaintiff class members would obtain from the proposed settlement is largely illusory. The settlement does not result in meaningful reform of the interchange fee system and appears to provide less relief than would likely result from continued litigation. In short, the settlement is a bad deal for merchant plaintiffs and the public at large.\",\"PeriodicalId\":198490,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Georgetown Law Center Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series\",\"volume\":\"59 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-08-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Georgetown Law Center Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2133361\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Georgetown Law Center Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2133361","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本文简要分析了第1720号“交换费与商家折扣反垄断诉讼”(MDL 1720, E.D.N.Y.)中拟议的集体和解。分析认为,原告集体成员将从拟议的和解中获得的救济在很大程度上是虚幻的。和解不会导致对交换费制度进行有意义的改革,而且似乎比继续诉讼可能带来的缓解要少。简而言之,这项和解对商人原告和公众来说都是一项糟糕的交易。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
An Analysis of the Proposed Interchange Fee Litigation Settlement
This paper is a brief analysis of the proposed class settlement in In re Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1720 (E.D.N.Y.). The analysis concludes that the relief plaintiff class members would obtain from the proposed settlement is largely illusory. The settlement does not result in meaningful reform of the interchange fee system and appears to provide less relief than would likely result from continued litigation. In short, the settlement is a bad deal for merchant plaintiffs and the public at large.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
An Analysis of the Proposed Interchange Fee Litigation Settlement International Financial Standards and the Explanatory Force of Lex Mercatoria Rate-Jacking: Risk-Based and Opportunistic Pricing in Credit Cards Terror Financing, Guilt by Association and the Paradigm of Prevention in the 'War on Terror' Structuring Securities Regulation in the European Union: Lessons from the U.S. Experience
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1