![]() ![]() The issue is they seemed to be Verlander’s second choice. The Dodgers also tried for new Astro Verlander, who was a late-arriving Astros pitcher in 2017, so the trashy title over LA wasn’t a Dodgers concern. They made an offer of multiple prospects thought to be about the value of Acuna (but the Mets obviously preferred the one big-time prospect can’t blame ’em). The Dodgers, who did acquire veteran starter Lance Lynn (who did waive his no-trade), were in on not only Verlander and Eduardo Rodriguez but Scherzer, too. The Mets had a high price tag for Pete Alonso at the trade deadline. One said he’d bet “a ton” Stearns takes the job. Friends do predict he is likely to go to the Mets. He can’t say anything as he’s still a Brewers employee. One oddity is they presumably will have a new baseball president in a few months. “It isn’t easy to admit a mistake,” one rival said. Rival execs generally applauded the Mets’ quick reversal and thought they did well to get SS/CF Luisangel Acuna, OF Drew Gilbert and OF Ryan Clifford. But Max Scherzer wanted to win and Justin Verlander liked the idea of Houston, especially after hearing of the Mets longer-range plan. No-trade clauses played a big role in trades by limiting potential landing spots. The Mets understood it wasn’t happening by midday. Pete Alonso’s name was out on the market, but sources say the price was extremely high, as their heart probably wasn’t in it. Steve Cohen's roster teardown was absolutely right with Mets headed nowhere Ranking MLB's biggest disasters of 2023 season ![]() Jackson Holliday's Orioles arrival could come this season This part reviews pay-for-delay decisions since Actavis, arguing that the courts have failed to properly analyze such cases from the perspective of all three notions inherent in the words “pay,” “for,” and “delay.” Finally, Part IV offers a path forward through the doctrinal haze.Six Brian Cashman moves helped put Yankees in this predicamentĬody Bellinger could be in line for big deal when he hits free agency Part III argues that courts are allowing this costly problem to flourish unchecked. The methodology with the largest result suggests that the cost could be as high as $37.1 billion per year- ten times higher. population between 20 is $6.2 billion per year-almost double that of the FTC’s estimate. The range of methodologies show that at a minimum, the cost of pay-for-delay settlements on the U.S. We applied six different methodologies to provide as fair and broad a view as possible. Part II presents a new analysis demonstrating that the cost of pay-for-delay to American consumers is far greater than anyone has recognized, and well beyond the $3.5 billion figure cited by the FTC in 2010. Part I describes pay- for-delay agreements, exploring the literature on the potential harm of such agreements among pharmaceutical competitors. To understand the state of pay-for-delay agreements, this Article presents an in-depth examination of the burden that pay-for-delay imposes, both on society at large and on individual patients, and explores the modern legal landscape that has emerged since the Supreme Court’s historic pronouncement. Laying the groundwork for the lawsuit that would eventually lead to the Actavis decision, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) published a study estimating that pay-for-delay agreements cost American consumers $3.5 billion annually, a figure that has been cited repeatedly by scholars and policymakers alike. With these “pay-for-delay” agreements, brand-name companies offer prospective generics some form of compensation in exchange for the generic’s promise not to enter the market until an agreed-upon date. Supreme Court opened the door for antitrust suits against brand and generic pharmaceutical companies who engage in collusive settlements to delay the time for the generic to come to market. In a landmark decision nearly a decade ago, the U.S.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |