Law Center Search Results

On October 15, 2025, the NAM filed an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review and reverse a lower court decision that allows plaintiffs to toll the statute of limitations on federal claims through vague allegations of an unwritten agreement that allegedly amount to “fraudulent concealment.” In this case, thousands of former naval engineers filed a class action against their former employers alleging violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act by way of a decades-long “no-poach” agreement. After a district court ruling in the defendants’ favor, the 4th Circuit reversed, finding that the plaintiffs’ allegations of an unwritten industry-wide agreement stated a claim for fraudulent concealment, thereby tolling the four-year statute of limitations on their Sherman Act claims for an indefinite period. “Tolling” or expanding the limitations period caused the size of the plaintiffs’ class and the defendants’ damages exposure to increase exponentially. Further, the ruling left the defendants uncertain as to the exact conduct being challenged, as the temporal boundaries of the limitations period were left undefined. Following denial of a petition for rehearing en banc, the defendants petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari.,P. In our brief supporting cert, we argue that bare-bones allegations of unwritten agreements do not adequately state a claim for fraudulent concealment. Allowing such lenient pleading standards for claims that toll the statute of limitations virtually negates the statute of limitations defense, unfairly exposes companies to massive judgments and settlements in class action cases, and eliminates the certainty which the statute of limitations provides to companies in calculating risk exposure, litigation strategy, and more.