Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How did an interest in healthcare policy lead Robert Platt to a career in the law? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

Envision to Sell to KKR for $9.9 Billion

We represented Envision Healthcare Corporation (NYSE: EVHC) in its definitive agreement to sell to KKR in an all-cash transaction for $9.9 billion, including debt. KKR will pay $46 per Envision share in cash to buy the company, marking a 32 percent premium to the company's volume-weighted average share price from November 1, when Envision announced it was considering its options. The transaction is expected to close the fourth quarter of 2018. Read more

Envision Healthcare

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

Six Things to Know Before Buying a Physician Practice spotlight

Dermatology, ophthalmology, radiology, urology…the list goes on. Yet, in any physician practice management transaction, there are six key considerations that apply and, if not carefully managed, can derail a transaction. Download the 6 Things to Know Before Buying a Physician Practice to keep your physician practice management transactions on track.

Click here to download the guide.

DOJ: No-poach Agreements Violate Antitrust Laws, Criminal Penalties Against Companies Are On the Way

Firm Publication


February 7, 2018

Expect criminal indictments in the near future against companies that have agreed not to recruit or hire each other's employees. That was the strong message from Makan Delrahim, the new Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division, at an antitrust conference on January 19, 2018. Known as "no-poach" agreements, these arrangements have been on the DOJ's radar since late 2016. With the change of administrations, however, many expected the Trump DOJ to have less interest in this Obama-era policy. Not so. 

Both the FTC and DOJ Have Put Companies and HR Professionals "On Notice"

In guidance published in 2016 by the DOJ and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for human resources (HR) professionals and others involved in hiring and compensation decisions ("2016 Guidance"),1  the agencies cautioned that the DOJ and FTC would aggressively enforce the antitrust laws, both civilly and criminally, against no-poach agreements, wage-fixing agreements, and other anti-competitive employment agreements. The 2016 Guidance was in contrast with prior DOJ and FTC practice, in which such issues were dealt with purely through civil enforcement. Subsequently, in a September 2017 statement, then Acting Assistant Attorney General Andrew Finch made clear that even though two companies may not be competitors in the sale of products or services, they could still be competitors for hiring certain types of employees; the DOJ stated that a no-poach agreement between them would constitute a per se (or automatically illegal) violation of the antitrust laws. These statements are simply the latest indication that the DOJ and FTC view no-poach agreements as serious restraints on competition in the employment market. 

No-poach and Wage-fixing Agreements Are Not Uncommon

While some companies may believe that their exposure to such actions is unlikely, they should take notice of the number of industries that have already experienced civil litigation over no-poach and wage-fixing agreements. For example, in 2010 the DOJ filed lawsuits against six large high technology companies – Adobe Systems Inc., Apple Inc., Google Inc., Intel Corp., Intuit Inc. and Pixar – for entering into various no-poach agreements stating that the companies would not solicit each other's highly skilled employees. That matter ended when all six companies entered into settlements preventing the companies from entering into such agreements. Class action litigation ensued. In addition, the DOJ reached a settlement in 2007 with an Arizona hospital after taking action against the hospital for entering into an agreement to fix the wages of temporary nursing personnel. Furthermore, private class action antitrust lawsuits arising out of employment practices have been brought against entities in a variety of industries. This includes a recently certified nationwide class of more than 90,000 plaintiffs against 15 au pair recruitment companies that allegedly entered into illegal wage-fixing agreements, a class action involving 5,500 medical school professors against Duke University for allegedly entering into a no-hire agreement with the University of North Carolina, and a lawsuit alleging a no-poach agreement involving restaurant shift leaders.

Companies That Have Continued No-poaching Behavior Since 2016 Guidance are Likely to be Criminally Charged

Delrahim's statement is the first public announcement of imminent criminal charges relating to no-poach agreements. It further emphasizes the importance of the 2016 Guidance. Delrahim noted that the 2016 Guidance will be a crucial marker: if companies that were engaging in no-poaching activity prior to the issuance of the 2016 Guidance have continued such behavior, the DOJ will likely treat it as a criminal violation. In addition, Delrahim discussed the consent judgments settled against several technology companies in civil enforcement actions brought by the DOJ for engaging in no-poach agreements. He indicated that if these companies have not complied with the judgments in those cases, they may now be subject to criminal enforcement actions.

Companies Should Review Practices Now to Avoid Violations and Criminal Prosecution

The DOJ has now made crystal clear its commitment to criminal prosecution of no-poach agreements. Employers and HR personnel should carefully review their hiring and compensation practices, and those actually followed by other departments in their companies, to identify any potential violations of antitrust law. Any variance from the 2016 Guidance and the enforcement officials' recent statements should be promptly and vigorously addressed. 

For more information about this topic or to discuss compliance and training issues, please contact the authors of this Alert.

1 DOJ Antitrust Division and FTC, Antitrust Guidance for Human Resource Professionals (October 2016), available at

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.