In a proposed class action lawsuit filed in a Kansas federal court, a consortium of asset and wealth management firms, including Mariner Wealth and American Century Investments, has been accused of violating antitrust laws by engaging in a conspiracy to restrict employee recruitment and hiring practices. The lawsuit, initiated by two former employees of TortoiseEcofin Investments, one of the defendants, alleges that the companies collaborated in implementing “no-poach” agreements, effectively stifling competition and depressing wages within the industry.
The plaintiffs contend that by entering into these agreements, the companies aimed to maintain a stranglehold on the labor market, preventing employees from freely seeking opportunities at competing firms. Additionally named in the lawsuit are Montage Investments and 1248 Holdings LLC, formerly known as Bicknell Family Holding Company.
Describing the case as a matter concerning the fundamental rights of employees to access free and fair job markets, the lawsuit underscores the broader implications of such antitrust practices within the investment sector.
Responding to the allegations, American Century Investments issued a statement affirming its commitment to fair competition and regulatory compliance. The company asserted its intention to address the claims through the legal process.
At the time of reporting, legal representatives for the plaintiffs had not provided a comment on the matter.
The lawsuit reflects a broader trend of civil litigation across various industries, including aerospace engineering, shipbuilding, and high fashion, where similar allegations of collusion to suppress employee mobility and maintain artificially low wages have surfaced in recent years. As the case unfolds, it is poised to shed light on the complexities surrounding competition and labor practices within the asset and wealth management sector.
Source: Reuters
Featured News
CVS Health Explores Potential Breakup Amid Investor Pressure: Report
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
DirecTV Acquires Dish TV, Creating 20 Million-Subscriber Powerhouse
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
South Korea Fines Kakao Mobility $54.8 Million for Anti-Competitive Practices
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Google Offers Settlement in India’s Antitrust Case Regarding Smart TVs
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Attorney Challenges NCAA’s $2.78 Billion Settlement in Landmark Antitrust Cases
Oct 3, 2024 by
nhoch@pymnts.com
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh