Around the world, there are various similar agreements on the management of migratory species, in particular the Convention on Migratory Species, which focuses on the protection of species wherever they live and move. But it does not focus on trade, which is one of the biggest threats to elephants. Not too many topics related to restrictive alliances get buzzworthy status. However, when government and federal authorities and class action lawyers file lawsuits across the country and Fortune 500 companies in different industries start to set up and agree to change the way they do business, it usually generates a bit of noise and attention. It seems that, lately, not a week goes by without a new title being debated on the latest theme of the “hot bottom” in the world of restrictive alliances – “non-poaching” agreements. There is reason to believe that there will be more enforcement measures in the future, including criminal prosecutions. A senior DOJ official recently said, “[I]t after I joined the department … I said I was surprised at how many no-Poach investigations we had underway. Now, I can say that we have many more. Much more. I`m really surprised at how widespread the practice is.  In the summer of 2018, a coalition of more than a dozen attorneys general (California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia) sent letters to eight national franchise-based fast food chains, in which they pulled information about their franchise agreements and no-poaching clauses. Many of these companies then agreed to abandon their non-poaching clauses. On July 17, 2018, you`ll find an informative overview of public policy arguments in franchise non-poaching agreements in Knowledge@Wharton University of Pennsylvania Wharton School of Business article and podcast: “How fair or legal are non-poaching agreements?” Many other species are managed cooperatively by all the countries that pass through the animals.
Take migratory birds in North America. Many native species were on the verge of extinction at the turn of the twentieth century. The trade in native North American birds was booming, so rich women could wear feathered hats and hats with stuffed birds. In 1916, the United States and Canada signed the Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds, which later underpinned the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the first major environmental law in the United States. He ensured that birds traveling across the continent had the same protection from hunting, the feather trade and egg collection, regardless of the side of the border. In the following years, Mexico, Japan and Russia signed similar agreements with the United States to ensure that birds were protected on their migration routes. Employers who enter into non-poaching agreements with their competitors continue to face civil and criminal liability for anti-dominant cartels. In addition, employers who have contractual agreements to recruit or prohibit debauchery with their employees may be deemed unenforceable.
For employers, especially those with a presence in Indiana, it is essential to review these agreements and update them if necessary. As federal antitrust authorities have targeted so-called “no poach” agreements in recent years, it has become increasingly important for employers in all sectors to learn about the risks of entering into agreements that limit their competition to workers. Here you will find an answer to some of the frequently asked questions regarding the exposure of such no-Poach agreements to the application of anti-dominant anti-government rules. Employers should check the non-poaching clauses in their existing contracts and consider whether they should be withdrawn. In addition, personnel professionals and other stakeholders in recruitment and compensation decisions should review the DOJ/FTC “guidelines” to identify and avoid antitrust pitfalls. The flood of activity in this area of contract-restrictive law will remain a hot topic for the foreseeable future, as will the risk of criminal and civil lawsuits for companies that do not use poaching agreements. . .