was procedurally unconscionable, which, combined with a waiver of class action remedies, renders the contracts unenforceable. While plaintiffs seem to assert that the collusion is an antitrust violation (Tr. at 33-34), no such allegation is advanced in the Complaint. Kelly v. Kosuga, holding that an antitrust violation is severable from an “intelligible economic transaction in itself,” is dis-positive. 358 U.S. 516, 521, 79 S.Ct. 429, 3 L.Ed.2d 475 (1959); see also Viacom Int’l Inc. v. Tandem Prods., Inc., 526 F.2d 593 (2d Cir.1975) (analyzing the Kelly decision, and holding that where a separate antitrust claim was available to plaintiffs, it should not be a defense to enforcement of an otherwise valid contract); Wechsler v. Hunt Health Sys., Ltd., 216 F.Supp.2d 347 (S.D.N.Y.2002) (<HOLDING>). The arbitration agreement is part of an
holding that an agreement in violation of antitrust laws may be enforceable where the parties underlying conduct is legal holding that there must be a causal connection between the alleged antitrust violation and the antitrust injury for there to be antitrust standing holding that a court may only enforce a settlement agreement if it constitutes an enforceable contract holding that it may not holding that a court may enforce a contract when it does not mandate illegal conduct despite an antitrust violation