A three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit overturned an executive’s bid-rigging antitrust conviction, holding that the district court erred in applying the per se standard to the executive’s...more
Maybe don’t get a drink with your competitor. These are not easy times to be in human resources. Attracting, recruiting, and retaining talented employees is as challenging as ever. As I have previously written, wages are...more
Introduction - No-poach agreements, wherein companies agree not to solicit or hire employees away from a competitor, have been targeted by the White House, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Antitrust Division....more
In Deslandes v. McDonald’s USA LLC, issued August 25, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit overturned the dismissal of antitrust claims that challenged no-poach clauses in franchise agreements....more
In an important decision on August 19, 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Aya Healthcare Services, Inc. v. AMN Healthcare, Inc. affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of AMN, finding that the...more
Earlier this month, the Second Circuit overturned a decision by the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) holding 1-800-Contacts violated antitrust law by entering into trademark settlement and related agreements that...more
The most powerful tool capable of invalidating competitive restraints under California law is Business and Professions Code section 16600. That statute states that “[e]very contract by which anyone is restrained from...more
Federal district courts around the country continue to grapple with how to analyze “no-poach” agreements — whereby two or more companies agree not to hire or recruit each other’s workers — under the antitrust laws. Beginning...more
On October 7, 2019, California became the first state to enact legislation—Assembly Bill 824 ("AB 824")—rendering certain pharmaceutical patent litigation settlement agreements presumptively anticompetitive. This alert...more
In the last week of June 2019 a copy of a groundbreaking court ruling emerged on social media in China – the order by the Supreme People's Court (SPC) in the Yutai case. ...more
‘No-poach’ agreements between businesses not to compete with each other for employees have long been held unlawful under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, which prohibits certain restraints on trade and competition....more
Legal battles over the antitrust treatment of no-poach agreements continue to escalate with new district court decisions and new pronouncements from two “titans” of antitrust policy, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the...more
Dealing with clinical studies can be one of the more challenging aspects of being an advertising/marketing lawyer, particularly if you are one of many lawyers who took the political science/econ route to law school. ...more
Evolving antitrust treatment of so-called “no-poach” agreements continues to offer important guidance for company counsel and human resources professionals. Over the past two years, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has...more
In a long-running antitrust case, the Eleventh Circuit recently denied defendant Blue Cross Blue Shield’s interlocutory appeal of the district court’s ruling that certain allegedly restrictive practices of defendants must be...more
On 31 October the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah's decision in United States v. Kemp & Associates, et al. that dismissed the government's indictment as time...more
Fifteen months after the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced its intention to criminally pursue no-poaching agreements — in which competitors agree not to recruit or hire each other’s employees —...more
Since 2013, the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association has faced a series of purported class actions consolidated in the U.S. District Court in Alabama. In a recent decision focused upon the appropriate standard of review, the...more
A court’s decision regarding the proper standard of review in a Sherman Act Section 1 case—whether to analyze the defendant’s conduct as a per se antitrust violation or under the “rule of reason”—is highly significant. The...more
On August 28, a Utah federal judge held in United States v. Kemp & Associates, et al. that he will apply the rule of reason standard in a criminal prosecution against an heir-locator company for allegedly colluding with its...more
On the eve of trial, and after years of litigation (including an appeal to the Sixth Circuit), all claims by Dayton, Ohio hospital The Medical Center at Elizabeth Place (“MCEP”) against Premier Health Partners (“Premier”)...more
On November 21, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld a 2014 jury verdict for AstraZeneca (AZ) and Ranbaxy regarding a 2012 payment of $700 million from AstraZeneca for Ranbaxy to abandon its challenge...more
On November 7, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review an appeal from a Third Circuit decision finding that a settlement between GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (Teva) involving the...more
Last week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a major win for American Express in a landmark decision in United States v. American Express Co. In that case the government filed an antitrust suit against...more
On August 8, the District of Connecticut issued a noteworthy ruling on how to approach defining the relevant market definition in a pay-for-delay suit. In In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation, 3:14-md-02516 (D. Conn.), three...more