Close X
Attorney Spotlight

What is Shannon Wiley looking forward to at this year's Asembia Specialty Pharmacy Summit? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

Primary Care Providers Win Challenge of CMS Interpretation of Enhanced Payment Law

With the help and support of the Tennessee Medical Association, 21 Tennessee physicians of underserved communities joined together and retained Bass, Berry & Sims to file suit against the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to stop improper collection efforts. Our team, led by David King, was successful in halting efforts to recoup TennCare payments that were used legitimately to expand services in communities that needed them. Read more

Tennessee Medical Association & Bass, Berry & Sims

Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Download the Healthcare Fraud & Abuse Review 2017, authored by Bass, Berry & Sims

The Healthcare Fraud & Abuse Review 2017 details all healthcare-related False Claims Act settlements from last year, organized by particular sectors of the healthcare industry. In addition to reviewing all healthcare fraud-related settlements, the Review includes updates on enforcement-related litigation involving the Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute, and looks at the continued implications from the government's focus on enforcement efforts involving individual actors in connection with civil and criminal healthcare fraud investigations.

Click here to download the Review.

Beware: No-Solicitation and No-Hire Agreements Highlight Serious Antitrust Risk


September 27, 2013

A series of legal actions brought by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and private parties in recent years has disclosed another area of antitrust risk that company executives, business owners, and human resource managers need to beware of. Employers who agree expressly or implicitly with their competitors not to hire or recruit each other’s employees are subject to claims that they have violated the antitrust laws. So far, these claims have played out in several high-profile actions against Silicon Valley titans Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, and others. Developments in this area warrant close attention because, like these employers, some may assume that such agreements are proper; yet, the DOJ has challenged these agreements as being illegal "per se" – unlawful on their face.

Earlier this week, a putative class of software engineers that filed suit against these tech giants for anti-poaching and anti-recruiting agreements announced they had settled with three of the defendants, Intuit, Lucasfilm and Pixar, for $20 million. Plaintiffs alleged the companies adopted agreements to cap pay packages to prospective talent, to abstain from recruiting one another’s employees, and to provide notice when an offer was made to a competitor’s employee. As often happens, this private class action followed a 2010 lawsuit brought by the DOJ against these same high-tech competitors making similar claims. The DOJ asserted the agreements were "facially anti-competitive" because they were agreements among competitors to restrict pay and limit job opportunities. In that case, the parties ultimately agreed with the DOJ to suspend these practices.

In 2012, the DOJ filed a similar lawsuit against eBay, claiming that eBay and Intuit senior executives entered into a "handshake" deal not to solicit or hire the other’s employees. eBay has not settled at this point and is vigorously denying that the "agreements" are unlawful. It has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which was argued in April and remains pending a court ruling.

The Bottom Line

In spite of the DOJ’s "per se" illegal approach to these cases, no-hire and no-solicitation agreements may be justifiable under some limited circumstances. However, the fact that the DOJ has challenged these agreements as per se illegal substantially increases the risk profile and requires caution for companies considering them. Employers seeking to enter into such agreements with competitors are wise to contact antitrust counsel to carefully evaluate the potential risk.

If you have questions about the content of this alert, please contact one of the authors listed above.

Related Professionals

Related Services


Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.