ILN Today Post
January 21, 2020
I. The State Administration for Market Regulation issues the Draft of the Revised PRC Anti-Monopoly Law (Exposure Draft);
The State Administration for Market Regulation issues the Interim Provisions of the Review of Concentration of Undertakings (Exposure Draft);
September 3, 2019
Last month the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division announced a landmark new policy to incentivize companies to develop robust antitrust compliance programs. For the first time, the Antitrust Division will now consider a company’s antitrust compliance program as a factor in evaluating whether or not to bring criminal charges against the company and its officers.
June 28, 2019
The 2019 legal landscape of employee mobility continues to evolve, at times drastically. Courts and legislatures are giving increased scrutiny to employers’ claims to protect the confidentiality of their trade secrets and attempts to enforce their employees’ restrictive covenants, including non-competition and non-solicitation agreements. It can be hard for employers to prevent their confidential information and client goodwill from following certain departing employees.
With greater knowledge of the latest legal theories, decisions, statutes, and other developments in this area, employers can better protect and defend their interests—even preemptively—including in the ways they draft their employee agreements, design their compensation structures, and consider whether and when to engage in litigation.
This issue of Take 5 aims to provide a few tools for deciphering and navigating this changing employee mobility landscape.
ILN Today Post
April 11, 2018
Cleveland antitrust attorneys Jennifer Dowdell Armstrong and Christopher Dean sit down with host Mike Witzke to discuss the hidden dangers regarding antitrust violations that businesses must be aware of, such as algorithmic pricing, merger review and per se offenses. Armstrong and Dean also discuss why small and mid-sized businesses must be aware that civil and criminal antitrust concerns are not only an issue for large corporations.
February 9, 2018
Featured on Employment Law This Week: Trump Continues Obama Antitrust Guidance for HR Professionals
No relief from the Trump administration on anti-poaching agreements. 2016 guidance from the DOJ and FTC put employers on notice that agreements between companies not to poach employees, or to limit the compensation paid to some employees, could violate antitrust laws. There had been some speculation that President Trump’s DOJ would back away from this policy, but recent comments by the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division indicated that new administration will support the policy, and promised several announcements in the coming months. Aime Dempsey, from Epstein Becker Green, has more.
January 26, 2018
On October 20, 2016—just about three weeks before the presidential election won by Donald Trump—the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission issued a remarkable document, entitled “Antitrust Guidance for Human Resources Professionals,” which outlined an aggressive policy promising to investigate and punish employers, and even individual Human Resources employees, who enter into unlawful agreements concerning recruitment or retention of employees. As stated in that document, “[a]n agreement among competing employers to limit or fix the terms of employment for potential hires may violate the antitrust laws if the agreement constrains individual firm decision-making with regard to wages, salaries or benefits; terms of employment; or even job opportunities.”
December 12, 2017
The state-action antitrust exemption grew out of the 1943 decision of Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943), in which the Supreme Court explained that “nothing in the language of the Sherman Act or in its history suggests that its purpose was to restrain a state or its officers or agents from activities directed by its legislatures.” And, relying on principles of federalism, the Supreme Court gave deference to the state as a sovereign body.
Subsequent decisions expanded the reach of state-action to state and local governmental agencies (including counties and municipalities), as well as private parties. In California Retail Liquor Dealers Ass’n v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 U.S. 97 (1980), the Supreme Court held that the actions of state and local governmental agencies was exempt if they were undertaken pursuant to a clearly articulated state policy. Also in Midcal, the Supreme Court ruled that private parties could take cover under this exemption if they acted pursuant to a clearly articulated state policy and were actively supervised.
June 6, 2017
The Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) recently submitted Congressional Budget Justification and Annual Performance Plan and Report contains helpful insight into the FTC’s focus and expectations for the coming fiscal year. Of particular note, is a slight shift of funds from activities designed to “protect consumers” to activities intended to “promote competition.” High on the FTC’s list of actions designed to promote competition is continued scrutiny of the health care industry. And to that end, the FTC reiterated its intention to, among other things:
May 23, 2017
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (“Antitrust Division”) released their respective year-end reviews highlighted by aggressive enforcement in the health care industry. The FTC, in particular, indicated that 47% of its enforcement actions during calendar year 2016 took place in the health care industry (including pharmaceuticals and medical devices). Of note were successful challenges to hospital mergers in Pennsylvania (Penn State Hershey Medical Center and Pinnacle Health System), and Illinois (Advocate Health Care Network and North Shore University Health System). In both actions, the FTC was able to convince the court that the merger would likely substantially lessen competition for the provision of general acute-care hospital services in relevant areas in violation of section 7 of the Clayton Act. See FTC v. Penn State Hershey Med. Center, 838 F. 3d 327 (3d Cir. 2016); and FTC v. Advocate Health Care Network et al No. 1:15-cv-11473, 2017 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 37707 (N.D. Ill.Mar. 16, 2017)