Section 8 Interlocking Directorates: Screening Sponsor, Observer, and Officer Seats Before Agencies Force Resignations

Jonathan Lasken
Jonathan Lasken
Foley & Lardner LLP

Jonathan Lasken is a partner in the Antitrust & Competition Practice Group in the Washington, D.C. office of Foley & Lardner LLP, which he joined in October 2026 after more than 15 years in government and private practice. He most recently served as assistant chief of the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division's Anti-Monopoly and Collusion Enforcement Section, during a period when the section brought the Agri Stats information sharing matter as well as the Apple and Google Ad Tech monopolization cases.

John R. Ingrassia
John R. Ingrassia
Proskauer Rose LLP

John R. Ingrassia is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Proskauer Rose LLP who has counseled businesses, private equity firms, and venture firms on antitrust issues for more than 25 years. His practice centers on the antitrust and CFIUS questions raised by mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures, including whether a transaction triggers Hart-Scott-Rodino or CFIUS pre-merger notification.

Live Video-Broadcast: December 3, 2026

2 hour CLE

Tuition: $195.00
Subscribe to Federal Bar Association CLE Pass...
Co-Sponsored by myLawCLE
Get this course, plus over 1,000+ of live webinars.
Learn More
Training 5 or more people?

Sign-up for a law firm subscription plan and each attorney in the firm receives free access to all CLE Programs

Program Summary

 

The Interlock Is Often Written into the Deal Documents Before Anyone Screens the Seat

The September 2026 Beretta–Ruger consent with federal antitrust enforcers put interlocking directorates back on the enforcement agenda. Section 8 of the Clayton Act bars the same person or entity from serving on the boards of competing companies. Enforcement now targets the designation right, not just the director. After Sevita, sponsor portfolios also face common control and deputized designee questions.

Treat a thin overlap as no overlap, and a seat can fail the competitor test. Overlook LLC, observer, and officer seats, and the screen misses real exposure. Answer an FTC or DOJ inquiry loosely, and the response can concede an information-sharing theory under Sherman Act Section 1 or FTC Act Section 5. Sign an unconditional appointment covenant, and the interlock is written in before any antitrust review.

Session 1 delivers a seat-by-seat triage memo format, a resign-or-restructure decision path, and response and resignation letter language that concedes no information flow. Session 2 delivers annotated designation and observer clauses, a conditional-appointment rewrite with a dormant-right mechanic, and a cross-fund portfolio tracking protocol with defined re-screen triggers. This is practitioner judgment the statute does not supply.

Key topics to be discussed:

  • Seat-by-Seat Triage
    Build a triage memo that tests each seat against the 2026 floor, including thin and emerging overlaps, competitive sales, and the one-year grace period.
  • Sponsor and Observer Exposure
    Test sponsor portfolios for common control and deputized designees after Sevita, and screen LLC seats, observer seats, and the officer prong.
  • Answering the Agency Inquiry
    Handle detection after the HSR form vacatur, answer the opening inquiry letter, and decide whether to resign or restructure after Beretta–Ruger without conceding information flow.
  • Drafting the Designation Right
    Draft designation, committee, and observer clauses with eligibility conditions, substitution mechanics, competitive-sensitivity exclusions, recusal, and return-or-destroy terms, now that enforcement targets the designation right.
  • Conditional and Fund-Layer Rights
    Rewrite unconditional appointment covenants into conditional, dormant designation rights, and catch seats created through side letters, co-sponsors, and operating-partner titles.
  • Portfolio Tracking Protocol
    Run a cross-fund tracking protocol with defined re-screen triggers and execute a mid-hold designee swap without creating an interlock.

This course is co-sponsored with myLawCLE.

Date / Time: December 3, 2026

  • 12:00 pm – 2:10 pm Eastern
  • 11:00 am – 1:10 pm Central
  • 10:00 am – 12:10 pm Mountain
  • 9:00 am – 11:10 am Pacific

Closed-captioning available

Speakers

Jonathan Lasken, Partner | Foley & Lardner LLP

Jonathan Lasken is a partner in the Antitrust & Competition Practice Group in the Washington, D.C. office of Foley & Lardner LLP, which he joined in October 2026 after more than 15 years in government and private practice. He most recently served as assistant chief of the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division’s Anti-Monopoly and Collusion Enforcement Section, during a period when the section brought the Agri Stats information sharing matter as well as the Apple and Google Ad Tech monopolization cases. Earlier, as senior trial counsel in the Office of the Director of the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Competition, he helped set policy and litigation strategy in merger and conduct matters involving technology, health care, and private equity.

  • Education & Credentials

Mr. Lasken earned his J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law in 2008, where he was named Best Oralist in the William Minor Lile Intramural Moot Court Competition and served on the Senior Editorial Board of the Virginia Tax Review. He received his B.A., cum laude, from the College of William & Mary in 2005 as a James Monroe Scholar. He clerked for Chief Judge William T. Moore, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. He is admitted in the District of Columbia and before the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the First, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and District of Columbia Circuits, and the U.S. District Courts for the District of Columbia, the District of New Jersey, the Eastern District of Michigan, the Eastern District of Missouri, and the Southern District of Ohio.

  • Recognition & Leadership

Mr. Lasken received the Janet D. Steiger Award in 2020 and 2022 and the Assistant Attorney General Award in 2017 for his government work. He was named a Super Lawyers Rising Star in Antitrust Litigation in 2014 and 2015. In his enforcement roles he served as first-chair trial counsel, argued motions, directed case teams, and held leadership responsibility over mergers, investigations, and coordination with international enforcers.

  • Professional Involvement

Mr. Lasken is a member of the Federal Bar Association, where he has served on the board of directors of the District of Columbia Chapter since 2011, was chapter president from 2021 to 2023, and chaired its Civics and Community Outreach Committee from 2020 to 2023. He is vice chair of the Health Care and Pharmaceuticals Committee of the American Bar Association Antitrust Law Section, a role he has held since 2023. In 2026 he moderated “Academic Perspectives on Healthcare Competition” at the ABA Antitrust in Healthcare Conference and chaired the session “Global Antitrust Developments in the Pharmaceutical Sector” at the 74th ABA Antitrust Law Spring Meeting. From 2022 to 2024 he led a series of FBA conversations with federal judges of the District of Columbia bench.

  • Experience

At the Antitrust Division, Mr. Lasken was lead counsel in the DOJ’s monopolization case against Apple and served on the team litigating against Google’s advertising technology business. At the FTC, he was lead trial counsel in the successful federal court trial challenging Hackensack Meridian Health’s proposed acquisition of Englewood Healthcare Foundation and served on the trial team that blocked the proposed Peabody Energy and Arch Coal joint venture. He was also lead counsel in the FTC’s challenges to Lockheed Martin’s proposed acquisition of Aerojet Rocketdyne, Edgewell Personal Care’s proposed acquisition of Harry’s, and Procter & Gamble’s proposed acquisition of Billie.

His FTC work further included leading litigation preparation in the NVIDIA and Arm matter and the challenge to HeidelbergCement AG’s proposed acquisition of Keystone Cement Company, representing the agency in proceedings over Illumina’s acquisition of Grail, helping supervise a confidential vertical merger challenge in health care markets, and handling multiple confidential health care investigations at both agencies. Earlier in his career, he led antitrust appeals for the United States in the Antitrust Division’s Appellate Section and practiced at Hunton & Williams LLP (now Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP), representing clients in government and class action antitrust litigation and counseling them on a wide range of antitrust issues.

 

John R. Ingrassia, Partner | Proskauer Rose LLP

John R. Ingrassia is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Proskauer Rose LLP who has counseled businesses, private equity firms, and venture firms on antitrust issues for more than 25 years. His practice centers on the antitrust and CFIUS questions raised by mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures, including whether a transaction triggers Hart-Scott-Rodino or CFIUS pre-merger notification. He is a recognized authority on HSR merger review and is regularly invited to take part in Federal Trade Commission and bar association meetings on the issues of the day.

  • Education & Credentials

Mr. Ingrassia earned his J.D. from Hofstra University School of Law and his B.A. from Pace University. He is admitted to practice in New York and the District of Columbia, and before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, and the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York.

  • Recognition & Leadership

Mr. Ingrassia has been recognized by The Legal 500 US for Antitrust: Civil Litigation/Class Actions: Defense (2023 to 2025), was named JD Supra Readers’ Choice #1 in Antitrust & Trade Regulation for 2022, and was listed in Washington DC Super Lawyers in 2019. He serves as co-chair of the District of Columbia Bar’s Antitrust and Consumer Law Section and sits on the D.C. Bar Nominations Committee.

  • Professional Involvement

Mr. Ingrassia writes regularly on merger notification and foreign investment rules, including “HSR Burdens Lifted: Fifth Circuit Denies FTC Stay, Reinstating Prior HSR Filing Requirements” (March 2026) and “Countdown to 2025: New HSR Premerger Disclosure Rules” (October 2024), along with articles on CFIUS enforcement, Team Telecom oversight, and outbound investment restrictions. He co-authored a bulletin on the FTC’s unsuccessful bid to enjoin the Steris and Synergy merger that was nominated for the 2016 Antitrust Writing Awards. He has presented HSR programs for the ABA Mergers and Acquisitions Committee and other audiences and has spoken on recent agency enforcement at ABA Corporate Counseling Committee programs. He is a board member of the Council for Court Excellence, where he co-chairs a committee, serves on the Legal Advisory Committee of the CAIR Coalition, and chairs the Kentlands Citizens Assembly.

  • Experience

Mr. Ingrassia advises private equity and venture firms, as well as operating companies, on the antitrust exposure of their transactions, assessing HSR reportability, clearing deals with the FTC, and addressing reportability under the EC Merger Regulation and other foreign merger control regimes. He also guides clients through CFIUS national security reviews and prepares CFIUS submissions when non-U.S. buyers seek to acquire U.S. businesses that raise national security concerns. Beyond transactions, he counsels clients on distribution, pricing, channel management, joint ventures, and price gouging compliance across the chemicals, pharmaceutical, medical device, telecommunications, financial services, consumer goods, and health care industries.

His representative matters include Grifols and Biomat in a $1 billion strategic investment by GIC and Grifols in a $1.9 billion strategic alliance with Shanghai RAAS; FTC and antitrust clearance for Arkema’s acquisition of the Ashland adhesives business; Church & Dwight in its acquisitions of the Hero Mighty Patch brand ($630 million), TheraBreath ($580 million), and Zicam ($530 million); Henry Schein in the spin-off and merger of its animal health business with Vets First Choice to form Covetrus; Össur in its acquisition of College Park Industries; Resonant Inc. in its $295.7 million sale to Murata Electronics; Mo-Sci Corporation and ETS Technology Holdings in their sale to The Heraeus Group; and KB Foods in its bankruptcy divestiture of Balducci’s and King Foods stores to Albertsons.

Agenda

SESSION 1 – Screening Board Seats for Section 8 Interlocks and Answering the Agency Inquiry | Jonathan Lasken & John R. Ingrassia | 12:00pm – 1:00pm

This hour covers the Section 8 calls that go past the statute: competitor status where the overlap is thin or emerging, sponsor portfolios that rely on common control, LLC and observer seats, officer-to-director interlocks, the one-year grace period, and answering an FTC or DOJ inquiry after the September 2026 Beretta–Ruger consent. Attendees leave with a seat-by-seat triage memo format and a resign-or-restructure decision path. They also leave with response and resignation letter language that does not concede a Section 1 or Section 5 information-flow theory. The hour does not recite the statute.

BREAK | 1:00pm – 1:10pm

SESSION 2 – Drafting Private Equity Board Designation and Observer Rights That Prevent Section 8 Interlocks | Jonathan Lasken & John R. Ingrassia | 1:10pm – 2:10pm

This hour moves the Section 8 screen upstream into the documents that create the seats. It walks through SEC-filed stockholders’ and investor agreements, unconditional appointment covenants, fund-level side-letter rights, and operating-partner titles, and shows where an interlock gets written in before any antitrust review. Attendees leave with annotated designation and observer clauses, a conditional-appointment rewrite with a dormant-right mechanic, and a cross-fund portfolio tracking protocol with defined re-screen triggers. The statute is not recited.

Credits

Alaska

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through Alaska’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity.
Alabama

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Arkansas

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Arizona

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

California

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Colorado

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Connecticut

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

District of Columbia

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Delaware

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Florida

Approved via Attorney Submission
2 General Hours

Receive CLE credit in Florida via attorney submission.
Georgia

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Hawaii

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Iowa

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Idaho

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Illinois

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Indiana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Kansas

Pending CLE Approval
2 Substantive

Kentucky

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Louisiana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Massachusetts

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maryland

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maine

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Michigan

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Minnesota

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Missouri

Approved for CLE Credits
2.4 General

Mississippi

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Montana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

North Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

North Dakota

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through North Dakota’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity. Section 1, Policy 1.14
Nebraska

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

myLawCLE reports attendance to Nebraska on each attorney’s behalf for all programs. Please do not self-report.
New Hampshire

Approved for CLE Credits
120 General minutes

As of July 1, 2014, the NHMCLE Board no longer provides pre- or post-approval of courses. Attendees must self-determine whether a program is eligible for credit, and self-report their attendance online at www.nhbar.org, based on qualification provisions of Rule 53.
New Jersey

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New Jersey’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity, except for the courses required under BCLE Reg. 201:2
New Mexico

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Nevada

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

New York

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New York’s Approved Jurisdiction Group “B”.
Ohio

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Oklahoma

Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General

Oregon

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Pennsylvania

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Rhode Island

Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General

South Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

South Dakota

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Tennessee

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Texas

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Utah

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Virginia

Not Eligible
2 General Hours

Vermont

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Washington

Approved via Attorney Submission
2 Law & Legal Hours

Receive CLE credit in Washington via attorney submission.
Wisconsin

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

West Virginia

Pending CLE Approval
2.4 General

Wyoming

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

More CLE Webinars
Upcoming CLE Webinars
AI-Augmented Legal Workflows: A Map to Success
AI-Augmented Legal Workflows: A Map to Success Thu, November 19, 2026
On-Demand
Live Replay
Using Adobe Acrobat’s AI Assistant for Legal
Using Adobe Acrobat’s AI Assistant for Legal Fri, November 20, 2026
Live Webcast