Law School Case Brief
Copperweld Corp. v. Indep. Tube Corp. - 467 U.S. 752, 104 S. Ct. 2731 (1984)
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1, reaches unreasonable restraints of trade effected by a contract, combination or conspiracy between separate entities. It does not reach conduct that is "wholly unilateral." Concerted activity subject to § 1 is judged more sternly than unilateral activity under § 2. Certain agreements, such as horizontal price fixing and market allocation, are thought so inherently anticompetitive that each is illegal per se without inquiry into the harm it has actually caused. Other combinations, such as mergers, joint ventures, and various vertical agreements, hold the promise of increasing a firm's efficiency and enabling it to compete more effectively. Accordingly, such combinations are judged under a rule of reason, an inquiry into market power and market structure designed to assess the combination's actual effect. Whatever form the inquiry takes, however, it is not necessary to prove that concerted activity threatens monopolization.
Petitioner Copperweld Corp. purchased petitioner Regal Tube Co., a manufacturer of steel tubing, from Lear Siegler, Inc., which had operated Regal as an unincorporated division, and which under the sale agreement was bound not to compete with Regal for five years. Copperweld then transferred Regal's assets to a newly formed, wholly owned subsidiary. Shortly before Copperweld acquired Regal, David Grohne, who previously had been an officer of Regal, became an officer of Lear Siegler, and, while continuing to work for Lear Siegler, formed respondent Independent Tube Corporation to compete with Regal. Respondent then gave Yoder Co. a purchase order for a tubing mill, but Yoder voided the order when it received a letter from Copperweld warning that Copperweld would be greatly concerned if Grohne contemplated competing with Regal and promising to take the necessary steps to protect Copperweld's rights under the noncompetition agreement with Lear Siegler. Respondent then arranged to have a mill supplied by another company.
Thereafter, respondent filed an action in Federal District Court against petitioners and Yoder. The jury found, inter alia, that petitioners had conspired to violate § 1 of the Sherman Act but that Yoder was not part of the conspiracy, and awarded treble damages against petitioners. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Noting that the exoneration of Yoder from antitrust liability left a parent corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary as the only parties to the § 1 conspiracy, the court questioned the wisdom of subjecting an "intra-enterprise" conspiracy to antitrust liability, but held that such liability was appropriate "when there is enough separation between the two entities to make treating them as two independent actors sensible," and that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that Regal was more like a separate corporate entity than a mere service arm of the parent.
Were a parent corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary legally capable of conspiring with each other under § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1?
The U.S. Supreme Court held that Copperweld and Regal were incapable of conspiring with each other for purposes of 15 U.S.C.S. § 1. The Court reasoned that antitrust liability should not depend on whether a corporate subunit is organized as an unincorporated division or a wholly owned subsidiary.
Access the full text case
Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.