Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp.
1984 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp.?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752 (1984), is a major US antitrust law case decided by the Supreme Court concerning the Pittsburgh firm Copperweld Corporation and the Chicago firm Independence Tube.[1] It held that a parent company is incapable of conspiring with its wholly owned subsidiary for purposes of Section 1 of the Sherman Act because they cannot be considered separate economic entities.
Copperweld v. Independence Tube | |
---|---|
Argued December 5, 1983 Decided June 19, 1984 | |
Full case name | Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp. |
Citations | 467 U.S. 752 (more) 104 S. Ct. 2731; 81 L. Ed. 2d 628 |
Case history | |
Prior | Independence Tube Corp. v. Copperweld Corp., 691 F.2d 310 (7th Cir. 1982); cert. granted, 462 U.S. 1131 (1983). |
Subsequent | Remanded, 753 F.2d 1076 (7th Cir. 1984). |
Holding | |
A parent company and its wholly owned subsidiary are incapable of conspiracy as defined by the Sherman Act. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Burger, joined by Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist, O'Connor |
Dissent | Stevens, joined by Brennan, Marshall |
White took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Laws applied | |
Sherman Antitrust Act | |
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings | |
Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 340 U.S. 211 (1951) |
Section 1 of the Sherman Act states that "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal." However, for a condition of conspiracy to exist, there must be at least two parties involved. Copperweld held that separate incorporation was not enough to render a parent and its subsidiary capable of conspiring, since forcibly the economic interests of a wholly owned subsidiary must be those of its parent. It does not apply to partially owned subsidiaries.[2]