Close X
Attorney Spotlight

Find out which two countries Cheryl Palmeri gets the most questions about related to International Trade in today's market? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

In June 2016, AmSurg Corp. and Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (Envision) announced they have signed a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which the companies will combine in an all-stock transaction. Upon completion of the merger, which is expected to be tax-free to the shareholders of both organizations, the combined company will be named Envision Healthcare Corporation and co-headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee and Greenwood Village, Colorado. The company's common stock is expected to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol: EVHC. Bass, Berry & Sims served as lead counsel on the transaction, led by Jim Jenkins. Read more.

AmSurg logo

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

Inside the FCA blogInside the FCA blog features ongoing updates related to the False Claims Act (FCA), including insight on the latest legal decisions, regulatory developments and FCA settlements. The blog provides timely updates for corporate boards, directors, compliance managers, general counsel and other parties interested in the organizational impact and legal developments stemming from issues potentially giving rise to FCA liability.

Read More >

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.