<oai_dc:dc xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd"><dc:coverage>United States, Georgia, Clarke County, Athens, 33.96095, -83.37794</dc:coverage><dc:creator>Menz, Michael B</dc:creator><dc:date>2002-07-02</dc:date><dc:description>affiliated corporations -- Sherman Act</dc:description><dc:description>The thesis revisits antitrust law’s intra-enterprise conspiracy doctrine in the context of affiliated corporations. After an analysis of the doctrine, its tension with the inevitable cooperation in a corporate group, and the reasons for its rejection in a limited setting by the Supreme Court, the paper goes on to explore the groundings for a broader solution. It clarifies how far the lower courts have extended the Supreme Court’s rationale and suggests a consistent standard as to when corporate groups form a single economic unit for purposes of section 1 of the Sherman Act. According to this standard, courts should assess on a case-by-case basis whether a parent corporation can control its subsidiary. There should be a rebuttable presumption for the existence of such potential control when the parent owns a majority of the subsidiary’s voting and common stock. To the contrary, when a parent owns less than a majority the rebuttable presumption should be that the corporations have conspiratorial capacity for antitrust purposes.</dc:description><dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format><dc:rights>http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/</dc:rights><dc:subject>Law--Study and teaching</dc:subject><dc:subject>University of Georgia. School of Law</dc:subject><dc:subject>Dissertations, Academic</dc:subject><dc:title>The Intra-enterprise Conspiracy Doctrine as Applied to Affiliated Corporations under Section 1 of the Sherman Act</dc:title><dc:type>Text</dc:type></oai_dc:dc>