Insights: Publications Interlocking Directorates – Not Just a Section 8 Issue
Law360
I regularly receive queries from clients regarding the legality of director interlocks under Section 8 of the Clayton Act. Section 8, of course, prohibits certain types of interlocking directorates between competitors with the goal of preventing anti-competitive coordination between the two interlocking companies. But a different and perhaps equally important question clients should consider is the potential risk created by interlocking directors under Section 1 of the Sherman Act or Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. A company’s ability to defend an interlock under Section 8 does not necessarily mean that the activities Section 8 was intended to forestall may not still occur — or appear to have occurred — and that may open the door for Sherman or FTC Act claims.
Disclaimer
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.
