The main statutory scheme for antitrust enforcement was laid out over a century ago, with the passage of the Sherman Act.' Today, it remains in virtually the same form as it did in 1890. But in the face of a changing corporate culture, courts have been faced with interpretive questions that most likely were beyond the purview of the statute's creators. One of the questions raised in recent years concerns the application of the Sherman Act to alleged conspiratorial activity2 between a parent corporation and its subsidiary.3 Although it might be conceptually difficult to think of a parent and subsidiary "conspiring" -much as it would be to think of your left and right hands "conspiring" -it may be surprising to find that in some situations a parent and a subsidiary can be held liable for antitrust damages when their coordinated activity harms consumers or another competitor. Under existing case law, the activity between a parent and any of its wholly owned subsidiaries is clearly immune from conspiratorial antitrust liability. This clarity ends when courts consider partially