Law Commons^™

No Injury? No Class: Proof Of Injury In Federal Antitrust Class Actions Post-Wal-Mart, Rami Abdallah Elias Rashmawi

Washington and Lee Law Review

Over the past twenty years the Supreme Court of the United States has systematically limited the scope of federal class actions brought under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Importantly, in two landmark decisions, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes and Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, the Supreme Court cemented a heightened level of inquiry demanded by Rule 23, a stringent, “rigorous analysis.”

This Note analyses the effects of this heightened inquiry on federal antitrust class actions, particularly in situations where the plaintiffs’ method of proving antitrust injury fails to do so for some of the putative class …

“No More No-Poach”: An Antitrust Plaintiff’S Guide, Amanda Triplett

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

It may seem that agreements between employers not to hire or solicit employees from each other would be illegal under the Sherman Act’s prohibition of conspiracies to fix prices or allocate markets. However, the complexity of this issue pushes the boundaries of antitrust law. But the core principals of antitrust law are tailored to reject them. In a market of employers, where firms are competitors, no-poach restraints have horizontal elements subject to a harsher standard of antitrust review. Firms that enter into these arrangements bypass legal methods to protect against the harms of employee loss, such as a non-compete agreement. …