View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by DigitalCommons@Pace Pace Law Review Volume 5 Article 6 Issue 4 Summer 1985 June 1985 Copperweld Corporation v. Independence Tube Corporation: The eD ath of a Doctrine John T. O'Connor Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr Recommended Citation John T. O'Connor, Copperweld Corporation v. Independence Tube Corporation: The Death of a Doctrine , 5 Pace L. Rev. 879 (1985) Available at: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr/vol5/iss4/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact
[email protected]. Copperweld Corporation v. Independence Tube Corporation: The Death of a Doctrine I. Introduction In Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp.,' a di- vided Supreme Court2 held that a corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary are legally incapable of conspiring to restrain trade in violation of section one of the Sherman Antitrust Act.3 In doing so, the Court clarified a previously confused area of an- titrust law and expressly repudiated the intraenterprise conspir- 5 acy doctrine.4 Under the intraenterprise conspiracy doctrine, enunciated in earlier Supreme Court decisions, common owner- ship of separately incorporated entities did not exempt the ac- tions of those entities from section one scrutiny, which prohibits contracts, combinations, or conspiracies in restraint of trade.' 1. 104 S. Ct. 2731 (1984).