The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a trade association have urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review a proposed class action accusing shipbuilders for the U.S. military of conspiring to suppress wages, saying keeping the case alive could cause a cascade of antitrust litigation over decades-old conduct.

The Shipbuilders Council of America backed General Dynamics Corp., Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. and others in an amicus brief filed Wednesday, saying the Fourth Circuit's holding that the former naval architects' claims could proceed, despite the companies' alleged decades-old no-poach conspiracy, supplants Congress' judgment by giving plaintiffs a free pass on time-barred claims when they assert an unwritten antitrust conspiracy.

"It also distorts the law of fraudulent concealment, which generally requires a defendant to take active steps to conceal the basis for the claim; 'mere silence' is not enough. ... The Fourth Circuit was wrong to hold that a mere allegation that a conspiracy was unwritten meets the high bar to demonstrate fraudulent concealment," the Shipbuilders Council said.

The council warned that should the Fourth Circuit's decision remain in place, it will have potentially enormous effects on the shipbuilding industry and other industries by subjecting them to "significant liability for stale claims based on decades-old conduct," which, if allowed to proceed past the pleading stage, could create significant settlement pressure.

"This court should grant certiorari to prevent that unwarranted result," the council said.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers also filed an amicus brief in support of the shipbuilders on Wednesday.

In their brief, the Chamber and NAM said the Fourth Circuit's decision "permits plaintiffs to evade statutes of limitations simply by alleging that defendants chose not to commit their conduct to writing," thereby transforming "silence into concealment." But fraudulent concealment requires more than keeping a secret, the Chamber and NAM said; it necessitates a showing of affirmative deception.

"By erasing that distinction, the Fourth Circuit invites the resurrection of decades-old claims based on nothing more than allegations of nondisclosure," the duo said. "The consequences for the business community are severe. If allowed to stand, the Fourth Circuit's rule would expose businesses to indefinite liability for ancient conduct that cannot be fairly defended."

The justices should grant the shipbuilders' petition to "to reaffirm that fraudulent concealment is a narrow exception reserved for affirmative deception — not a license to revive claims that are simply untimely," the Chamber and NAM said.

The case stems from a proposed class action from former naval architects, Susan Scharpf and Anthony D'Armiento, who accused General Dynamics, Huntington Ingalls and 18 other companies of illegally scheming for decades to not actively recruit, or poach, each other's employees. The suit, filed in Virginia federal court in 2023, aims to represent a class of all people employed by the companies as naval architects, marine engineers or both from Jan. 1, 2000.

Although a Virginia federal judge found their claims fell outside the four-year statute of limitations and dismissed the suit in April 2024, a split Fourth Circuit panel reversed that decision in May. The majority held that Scharpf and D'Armiento had adequately pled that they were kept in the dark about the alleged conspiracy within the statutory period because the employers were deliberately trying to conceal it. D'Armiento has since withdrawn as a plaintiff from the case.

The shipbuilders filed their petition before the Supreme Court in September, arguing the Fourth Circuit panel's decision conflicts with prior rulings by the Fifth, Sixth and Ninth circuits, which have explained that mere silence or unwillingness to admit wrongful activities is insufficient to establish fraudulent concealment. They also said the decision flouts the statute of limitations period Congress contemplated.

Counsel for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Thursday.

The Shipbuilders Council is represented by Nicole A. Saharsky and Leif Overvold of Mayer Brown LLP.

The Chamber and NAM are represented by Jonathan D. Urick and Matthew P. Sappington of the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, Erica T. Klenicki and Caroline McAuliffe of National Association of Manufacturers, Elbert Lin, Kevin S. Elliker, David M. Parker and Erica N. Peterson of Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP.

The shipbuilders are represented by Donald B. Verrilli Jr. and Ginger D. Anders of Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Matthew S. Hellman, Douglas E. Litvack, Elizabeth B. Deutsch, Michael A. Doornweerd and Gabriel K. Gillett of Jenner & Block LLP, Adam Block Schwartz, Todd Stenerson and Joseph P. Samuels of Allen Overy Shearman Sterling, Sima Namiri-Kalantari and Chahira Solh of Crowell & Moring LLP, David G. Barger of Greenberg Traurig LLP, Attison L. Barnes III, Krystal B. Swendsboe, Scott M. McCaleb and Jon W. Burd of Wiley Rein LLP, Brian A. Hill and Brian J. Whittaker of Nixon Peabody LLP, Benjamin L. Hatch, Casey E. Lucier, J. Brent Justus, Nicholas J. Giles, Joshua D. Wade and W. Cole Geddy of McGuireWoods LLP, Allison W. Reimann, Sean O'D. Bosack and Christie B. Carrino of Godfrey & Kahn SC, Christopher C. Brewer, Ryan P. Phair, Michael F. Murray and Craig Y. Lee of Paul Hastings LLP, Perry A. Lange, Jennifer Milici and John W. O'Toole of WilmerHale, William DeVinney of William DeVinney PLLC, Matthew J. MacLean and Alvin Dunn of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, and William E. Lawler III and Amanda C. DeLaPerriere of Blank Rome LLP.

The naval architects are represented by Brent W. Johnson, Steven J. Toll, Robert W. Cobbs, Alison S. Deich, Zachary R. Glubiak and Sabrina S. Merold of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Shana E. Scarlett, Rio S. Pierce, Steve W. Berman, Kevin K. Green and Elaine T. Byszewski of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, George F. Farah, Nicholas J. Jackson and Simon Wiener of Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, Candice J. Enders and Julia R. McGrath of Berger Montague, and Brian D. Clark, Stephen J. Teti and Arielle S. Wagner of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP.

The case is General Dynamics Corp. et al. v. Susan Scharpf et al., case number 25-293, in the Supreme Court of the United States.