Clayton Act Section 8 Interlocking Directorates

This document is private and is only viewable by you and users selected by you.
Reviews
Shared by: PCZKI
Categories
Tags
Stats
views:
6000
rating:
not rated
reviews:
0
posted:
5/6/2009
language:
English
pages:
0
Clayton Act Section 8 Interlocking Directorates Antitrust Practice Group Lunch Meeting October 23, 2008 Chris Compton Clayton Act Section 8 (15 U.S.C Sec 19) • Person cannot serve as director or officer of 2 or more competing corporations where – Each has combined capital, surplus and undivided profits exceeding $25,319,000 (as of Jan. 29, 2008) – Engaged in US or foreign competition Unless: – Competitive sales of either in last FY total $2,531,900 or less; or – Competitive sales of either < 2% of total sales; or – Competitive sales of neither is 4% or more of total sales Danger: Collusion “occasion of sin.” • • DOC# 1 Clayton 8, cont. • “Competitors”: products sold are interchangeable and sold within the same geographic area – Such that elimination of competition between them would violate any of the antitrust laws “Person” is both individuals and corporations But two companies must be separate, not agents – Affiliate’s numbers not counted if separate companies No safe harbor for de minimus competition – Per se liability once thresholds crossed Few court decisions to offer guidance DOC# 2 • • • • Clayton 8 Remedies • Can be enforced by agencies or private parties • Theoretically trebled damages available – No private plaintiff has yet won damages • Government seeks injunctive relief • Grace Period: – If person initially eligible, but thresholds later crossed, one year from then to extricate self. DOC# 3 Clayton 8 Issues • “Subsidiaries and Affiliates: Implications for – whether “two or more corporations” involved; and – whether “competition” by one should be imputed to others Deputization” Risk for VCs: Reading, Int’l v. Oaktree Cap. Mgmt, LLC (SDNY 2003) – Private equity firm could not appoint different representatives to two portfolio company boards – Firm is liable if its appointees are its “puppets” FTC Use of Section 5 to reach violations of spirit, if not letter, of Section 8 – E.g., Indirect interlocks; unconsummated plan; thresholds “not quite” reached (?) DOC# 4 • • Questions?

Shared by: PCZKI
Other docs by PCZKI
091216intelcmpt
Views: 1485  |  Downloads: 9
MSFT-EU
Views: 747  |  Downloads: 2
AAPL-NOKCountersuit
Views: 36561  |  Downloads: 80
dismissal2
Views: 558  |  Downloads: 0
ATT-VerizonDismissal
Views: 577  |  Downloads: 0
verizonresponse
Views: 5771  |  Downloads: 0
Psystar
Views: 4098  |  Downloads: 1
VerizonAmendComp _3_
Views: 22495  |  Downloads: 0
googleletter
Views: 5225  |  Downloads: 0