12.  Upon information and belief, Defendants had a longstanding agreement to control  their employees’ wages and mobility by agreeing not solicit each other’s employees.     14.  The mutual non-solicitation agreement itself constitutes a per se violation of the  Sherman Antitrust Act and the Colorado Antitrust Act of 1992 between Defendants from 2013  until it was brought to light by the AG’s investigation commencing in 2018 in the course of the  AG’s investigation into similarly illegal mutual non-solicitation and anti-poach agreements  entered into between several of the largest fast food franchisors operating in the United States.     16.  Arby’s, AMAC, US Beef, and the other DOE defendants’ conduct constituted a  contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce in violation of the  Colorado Antitrust Act of 1992, C.R.S. § 6-4-101, et seq.     17.  As set forth herein, upon information and belief, all of the Defendants entered into  the mutual non-solicitation agreements with the common interest and intention to keep their  employees’ wage costs down, so that profits continued to rise or at least not be undercut by rising  salaries across the industry.  As a result, Defendants engaged in anti-competitive behavior in  advancement of a common and illegal goal of profiting at the expense of competitive market- based salaries.    18.  Defendants agreements unreasonably restrained trade in violation of the Sherman  Act 15 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., and constituted unfair competition and unfair practices in violation of  Colorado Antitrust Act of 1992, C.R.S. § 6-4-101, et seq. Plaintiffs Larry Rice and Duane  Ferrell, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the Class defined herein, seek to recover the  difference between the wages and salaries that Class Members were paid and what Class  Members would have been paid in a competitive market, in the absence of Defendants’ unlawful  agreements, treble damages, attorneys fees, and interest, allowed under the law.    30.   Plaintiffs bring this case as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil  Procedure 23(b)(3) on behalf of a Class consisting of:  All persons who were employed by AMAC, Inc., United States Beef Corporation, or  Arby’s Franchisor, LLC, or any of the ten largest franchises of Arby’s in Colorado at any  time from July 12, 2014 through the conclusion of this action (the “Class Period”).3     31.  Plaintiffs believe there are more than 500 current and former employees in the  Class. Given Defendants’ systemic failure to comply with United States and Colorado laws  outlined in this case, the members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is  impractical. The Class is ascertainable from either Defendants’ employment or hiring records.   33.  Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Class. Plaintiffs  have no conflict of interest with any member of the Class. Plaintiffs have retained counsel  competent and experienced in complex class action litigation with the resources and expertise  necessary to litigate this case through to conclusion.     35.  Class action treatment is superior to any alternative to ensure the fair and efficient  adjudication of the controversy alleged herein. Such treatment will permit a large number of  similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously,  efficiently, and without duplication of effort and expense that numerous individuals would entail.  No difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this class action that would  preclude its maintenance as a class action, and no superior alternative exists for the fair and  efficient adjudication of this controversy. The Class Members are readily identifiable from  Defendants’ employee rosters, payroll records or other company records.   36.  Defendants’ actions are generally applicable to the entire Class. Prosecution of  separate actions by individual members of the Class creates the risk of inconsistent or varying  adjudications of the issues presented herein, which, in turn, would establish incompatible  standards of conduct for Defendants.   41.   Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the above paragraphs as if  fully set forth herein.    42.  Defendants, by and through their officers, directors, employees, agents or other  representatives, have entered into an unlawful agreement, combination and conspiracy in  restraint of trade, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1, et seq. Specifically, each Defendant agreed to  restrict competition for Class Members’ services through non-solicitation agreements, all with  the common purpose and effect of suppressing Class Members’ compensation and restraining  competition in the market for Class Members’ services.    43.  According to the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and Federal Trade Commission  (“FTC”), “…no-poaching agreements, among employers . . . are per se illegal under the antitrust  laws.” DOJ/FTC Antitrust Guidance for Human Resources Professionals, Oct. 2016, at p. 3. “It  is unlawful for competitors to expressly or implicitly agree not to compete with one another,  even if they are motivated by a desire to reduce costs.” Id. at p. 2.    44.  Defendants’ conduct injured Class Members by lowering their compensation and  depriving them of free and fair competition in the market for their services.    46.  In similar actions for defendant restaurant franchisors’ violation of the Sherman  Act, courts have denied defendants’ motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). See Yi v. SK  Bakeries, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-05627-RJB, Dkt. No. 33 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 13, 2018);  Deslandes v. McDonald’s USA, LLC, No. 17 C 4857, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105260 (N.D. Ill.  June 25, 2018).   47.  Plaintiffs seek the relief set forth below, including underpaid and treble damages.  48.   Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in the above paragraphs as if  fully set forth herein.    49.  Colorado Revised Statutes Section 6-4-101, et seq., prohibits illegal restraint of  trade or commerce. Specifically, C.R.S. § 6-4-104 states that “[e]very contract, combination in  the form of a trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce is illegal.”    51.  Defendants’ acts were unfair, unlawful, and/or unconscionable, both in their own  right.     52.  Defendants’ conduct injured Plaintiffs and other Class Members by lowering their  compensation and depriving them of free and fair competition in the market for their services,  allowing Defendants to unlawfully retain money that otherwise would have been paid to  Plaintiffs and other Class Members. Plaintiffs and other Class Members are therefore persons  who have suffered injury in fact and lost money or property as a result of the illegal restraint of  trade or commerce under C.R.S. § 6-4-104.    53.  The harm to Plaintiffs and members of the Class in being denied payment for their  services in the amount of higher wages and salaries that they would have received in the absence  of the conspiracy outweighs the utility, if any, of Defendants’ illegal non-solicitation agreements  and, therefore, Defendants’ actions described herein constitute an illegal restraint of trade or  commerce within the meaning of C.R.S. § 6-4-101, et seq.    54.  Pursuant to C.R.S. § 6-4-114, any person who is injured by a per se violation of  the Colorado Antitrust Act of 1992 may bring a civil action to recover actual damages, treble  damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.   55.  Plaintiff seeks the relief set forth below.    X.  ILLEGAL RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE  [Colorado Antitrust Act of 1992, C.R.S. § 6-4-101, et seq.]   VIOLATION OF SECTION ONE OF SHERMAN ACT  [15 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.]  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  