No Result
View All Result
SUBSCRIBE | NO FEES, NO PAYWALLS
MANAGE MY SUBSCRIPTION
NEWSLETTER
Corporate Compliance Insights
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Explore Topics
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Well-Being at Work
    • Leadership and Career
    • Opinion
  • Vendor News
  • Career Connection
  • Events
    • Calendar
    • Submit an Event
  • Library
    • Whitepapers & Reports
    • eBooks
    • CCI Press & Compliance Bookshelf
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Explore Topics
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Well-Being at Work
    • Leadership and Career
    • Opinion
  • Vendor News
  • Career Connection
  • Events
    • Calendar
    • Submit an Event
  • Library
    • Whitepapers & Reports
    • eBooks
    • CCI Press & Compliance Bookshelf
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
No Result
View All Result
Corporate Compliance Insights
Home Governance

‘Interlocking Boards’ Likely Targets of Increased Antitrust Investigations

DOJ signals crackdown on directors serving on multiple, competing boards

by Wendy Arends, Mark Tobey and Julia Banegas
May 24, 2022
in Governance
interlocking-boards-sec

Though not illegal (and rarely challenged), board interlocks at companies of all sizes now face almost certain scrutiny from an administration clearly serious about combatting market abuse and concentration of power.

In opening remarks given before the 2022 Spring Enforcers Summit, Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter revealed that the DOJ’s Antitrust Division is increasing its efforts to enforce alleged violations of Section 8 of the Clayton Act, one of the pillars of U.S. antitrust law.

“For too long, our Section 8 enforcement has essentially been limited to our merger review process.” Kanter said. “We are ramping up efforts to identify violations across the broader economy, and we will not hesitate to bring Section 8 cases to break up interlocking directorates.”

Clayton Act, Section 8
Section 8 of the Clayton Act prohibits a person from simultaneously serving as a director or officer in any two corporations (other than banks, banking associations, and trust companies) that are competitors. The prohibition only applies to corporations whose competitive sales are above a certain dollar threshold, and there are other exemptions that may apply. Read more

This increased level of scrutiny is consistent with the current administration’s well-publicized focus on antitrust law. The White House in July 2021 issued a sweeping executive order that attempts to marshal a whole-of-government approach to “enforce the antitrust laws to combat the excessive concentration of industry, the abuses of market power, and the harmful effects of monopoly and monopsony.”

Board interlocks were not explicitly addressed in the order, but it referenced the Clayton Act on six occasions, and when viewed alongside Kanter’s recent comments, there is sufficient reason to believe that companies with interlocking boards could be investigated by antitrust enforcers for a Clayton Act Section 8 violation.

Historically, private litigation and government challenges to resolve alleged interlocks have been rare, and the usual remedy is to require the offending board member’s resignation via a settlement agreement or by petitioning the court for injunctive relief.

As one might expect, this has led to a paucity of case law on the issue.[1] When coupled with the decided lack of antitrust agency enforcement, guidance on interlocks is far less defined than the legal standards addressing merger reviews. It follows that DOJ’s stated intention of “ramping up” its Section 8 enforcement could be a source of concern for corporations, if only because the parameters of potential enforcement actions are less known.

The evolution of Section 8

Section 8 of the Clayton Act has been revisited periodically since the law’s enactment in 1914, with the latest — and perhaps most consequential — amendment occurring in 1990. It was then that Congress altered the law’s near-absolute ban on interlocks, introducing safe harbors into the legislation that exclude certain competitive overlaps.

The 1990 amendment also raised the jurisdictional threshold from $1 million to $10 million, while introducing an annual adjustment to that figure based on U.S. gross national product (GNP).[2] These changes, reformers argued, were meant to address certain disincentives in the Clayton Act to board service that discouraged qualified individuals, thus depriving private business of their talents.

The 1990 amendments contain three de minimis exceptions to the interlock ban:

  • Competitive sales of either corporation are less than $1,000,000 (adjusted annually for changes in GNP —currently $4,103,400)
  • Competitive sales of either corporation are less than 2 percent of that corporation’s total sales
  • Competitive sales of each corporation are less than 4 percent of that corporation’s total sales.

These thresholds and exemptions only apply to horizontal interlocks that would otherwise violate Section 8.

Recent actions alleging Section 8 violations

  • On April 18, 2022, True Social Equity in Cannabis, an association of consumers, workers and others in Illinois, filed a complaint in the Northern District of Illinois alleging that Akerna Corp., Green Thumb Industries Inc., ILDISP LLC, Verano Holdings Corp., and Surterra Holdings Inc. maintained illegal interlocking directorates. Although the complaint contains vague and unsupported allegations of collusion, price-fixing (via information sharing), and monopolization of the legal Illinois marijuana market, no other antitrust violations besides the Section 8 claim are alleged. In addition, rather than requesting equitable relief to remedy the alleged interlock, the complaint inexplicably seeks to prohibit the defendants from marketing, selling, licensing, distributing, and growing marijuana and a divestiture of all assets.
  • In June 2021, DOJ announced that Endeavor Group executives were resigning from the Live Nation board of directors as part of a settlement of an alleged illegal interlocking directorate. This settlement is similar to other Section 8 investigations over the past decade resulting in a board resignation, such as when an executive of Google resigned from Uber’s board when the ride-sharing company announced it was pursuing self-driving vehicles, or when the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in 2009 closed an investigation into an interlock involving Google and Apple after a common member resigned from Google’s board and Google’s CEO resigned from Apple’s board.

These examples, including private litigation and government enforcement actions, demonstrate that Section 8 concerns can weigh on both extremely large businesses in mature industries and much smaller companies in emerging industries. Market definition is usually a key issue in antitrust law, and Section 8 is no exception: A potentially illegal interlocking board under Section 8 can be triggered by middle-market business operations, depending on how competition is defined and construed.

Furthermore, the legal costs associated with antitrust litigation or government investigation can be material for middle-market businesses. When viewed from the cost-benefit perspective, it makes sense for businesses large and small to take some preventive steps to assess and mitigate the risk of any potential Section 8 claims or and enforcement actions.

Considerations for compliance programs

Given the dynamic nature of Section 8’s safe harbor provisions, company executives, particularly those in the middle market, should monitor the composition of their company’s board of directors and officers with an eye toward Section 8’s prohibitions and jurisdictional thresholds. For companies whose Section 8 compliance strategies rely on safe harbor thresholds, be sure to assess the balance sheet and relevant markets at issue.

It is important to remember that sales on the balance sheet are a backward-looking indicator. Companies evolve and change based on perceptions about the future, and that includes the development and sale of new products and services. Company executives should be alert to how new products and services could implicate new areas of competition, both in their own enterprises as well as those with which there is an interlock.

In one of the few areas of case law on Section 8 — and probably still today the most important — the Ninth Circuit in TRW, Inc., v. Federal Trade Commission (1981) held that competition can encompass more than an assessment of the cross-elasticity of demand for existing products when viewed from the context of Section 8. This has huge implications, especially for emerging industries where the bright lines of competition are blurred by product and service offerings that are rapidly evolving. As the FTC’s former director of its Bureau of Competition wrote in a 2017 blog post about TRW, “neither company [named in the complaint] perceived the range of competitive possibilities in terms as narrow as those advanced by petitioners.”

Section 8 concerns can be particularly prevalent in the transactional context. Mergers and acquisitions often entail changes in the composition of the board of directors, and these changes can create interlocks, even (perhaps especially) in minority investments where the companies involved remain independent, stand-alone entities post-transaction. Furthermore, these kinds of equity investments can trigger Section 8 concerns at various levels, depending on existing interlocks with other companies that are not parties to the deal. All of this argues strongly for Section 8 compliance to be fully incorporated at an early point into existing M&A due diligence to avoid unforeseen risks.

Conclusion

The Clayton Act’s prohibition on interlocking boards may not have been a historic focus area for a company’s compliance plan, but given the change in DOJ’s regulatory posture vis-à-vis antitrust enforcement generally — and the recent comments made by DOJ about Section 8 —the risk profile for interlocking boards could prove to be higher than many corporate executives assume, both in terms of private litigation and government investigations.

References

[1] “Inter(Lock)down: The Need for Stricter Enforcement of Section 8 of the Clayton Act,” by Shafkat Rakib, Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 41, 2020: “A small number of Section 8 cases have been filed since 1914, and of those filed cases, only a handful have reached a decision on the merits.”

[2] “[T]he 2022 thresholds under Section 8 of the [Clayton] Act that trigger prohibitions on certain interlocking memberships on corporate boards of directors are $41,034,000 for Section 8(a)(l ) and $4,103,400 for Section 8(a)(2)(A).” Read more.


Tags: AntitrustBoard Composition
Previous Post

Accenture Study: Compliance Pressures Are Increasing, But Most Firms Are Keeping Up

Next Post

SEC Sanctions Warn Investment Firms That Good Intentions Aren’t Enough on Messaging Apps

Wendy Arends, Mark Tobey and Julia Banegas

Wendy Arends, Mark Tobey and Julia Banegas

Wendy Arends is a partner and antitrust attorney at Husch Blackwell’s Madison, Wisconsin office. She has collaborated on some of the nation’s most significant recent healthcare antitrust matters, including FTC and State of Idaho v. St. Luke’s Health System, which addressed integration and consolidation of healthcare providers in the wake of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Mark Tobey is senior counsel in Husch Blackwell’s Austin, Texas office. He brings more than three decades of experience to complex antitrust matters, with deep insight as to how the government analyzes acquisitions, joint ventures, exclusionary practices and trade association activities at both the state and federal level.
Julia Banegas is an associate in Husch Blackwell’s Washington, D.C. office. With her interest in the heavily regulated areas of government contracts and international trade, she helps clients conduct business smoothly across the nation and throughout the world.

Related Posts

safe harbor

What Is Safe in a World Without Antitrust Safe Harbors?

by Fiona Schaeffer and Adam Di Vincenzo
March 22, 2023

A trio of policy statements dating back to 1993 established the concept of safety zones with regard to information exchanges...

antitrust corporate compliance

Think Your Compliance Program Doesn’t Need to Address Antitrust Concerns? Think Again.

by McDermott Will & Emery
February 8, 2023

American antitrust authorities are using novel (and controversial) legal theories to further the Biden Administration’s aggressive antitrust posture. As Michael...

Paul Weiss Antitrust 2023_f

Paul | Weiss State of U.S. Antitrust Enforcement

by Corporate Compliance Insights
January 23, 2023

2022 was an active year for antitrust enforcement; what will 2023 hold? Where Do We Stand in 2023? The State...

hottest takes

The Hottest Compliance Takes of 2022

by Staff and Wire Reports
December 14, 2022

Nobody was canceled for anything they wrote for our pages in 2022 — at least that we know of. But...

Next Post
sec messaging apps investment firms

SEC Sanctions Warn Investment Firms That Good Intentions Aren't Enough on Messaging Apps

Compliance Job Interview Q&A

Jump to a Topic

AML Anti-Bribery Anti-Corruption Artificial Intelligence (AI) Automation Banking Board of Directors Board Risk Oversight Business Continuity Planning California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) Code of Conduct Communications Management Corporate Culture COVID-19 Cryptocurrency Culture of Ethics Cybercrime Cyber Risk Data Analytics Data Breach Data Governance DOJ Download Due Diligence Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) ESG FCPA Enforcement Actions Financial Crime Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) GDPR HIPAA Know Your Customer (KYC) Machine Learning Monitoring RegTech Reputation Risk Risk Assessment SEC Social Media Risk Supply Chain Technology Third Party Risk Management Tone at the Top Training Whistleblowing
No Result
View All Result

Privacy Policy

Founded in 2010, CCI is the web’s premier global independent news source for compliance, ethics, risk and information security. 

Got a news tip? Get in touch. Want a weekly round-up in your inbox? Sign up for free. No subscription fees, no paywalls. 

Follow Us

Browse Topics:

  • CCI Press
  • Compliance
  • Compliance Podcasts
  • Cybersecurity
  • Data Privacy
  • eBooks Published by CCI
  • Ethics
  • FCPA
  • Featured
  • Financial Services
  • Fraud
  • Governance
  • GRC Vendor News
  • HR Compliance
  • Internal Audit
  • Leadership and Career
  • On Demand Webinars
  • Opinion
  • Resource Library
  • Risk
  • Uncategorized
  • Videos
  • Webinars
  • Well-Being
  • Whitepapers

© 2022 Corporate Compliance Insights

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Explore Topics
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Well-Being at Work
    • Leadership and Career
    • Opinion
  • Vendor News
  • Career Connection
  • Events
    • Calendar
    • Submit an Event
  • Library
    • Whitepapers & Reports
    • eBooks
    • CCI Press & Compliance Bookshelf
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe

© 2022 Corporate Compliance Insights

Welcome to CCI. This site uses cookies. Please click OK to accept. Privacy Policy
Cookie settingsACCEPT
Manage consent

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
CookieDurationDescription
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional11 monthsThe cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy11 monthsThe cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytics
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
Others
Other uncategorized cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.
SAVE & ACCEPT