While the exact market share percentage necessary to prove attempt to monopolize may vary under differing market conditions, absent a showing of special market conditions, a market share of less than ten percent, as a matter of law, usually will not support a finding of attempt to monopolize. See Whitten v. Paddock Pool Builders, 508 F.2d 547 (1st Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 1004, 95 S.Ct. 2407, 44 L.Ed.2d 673 (1975) (3%); Mullis v. Arco Petroleum Corp., 502 F.2d 290, 297 (7th Cir. 1974) (3%); Harris v. Atlantic-Richfield Company, 469 F. Supp. 759, 763 (E.D.N.C. 1978) (3%); I. Haas Trucking Co. v. New York Fruit Auction Corp., 364 F. Supp. 868, 874-75 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) (10%). See also Giant Paper Film Corporation v. Albemarle Paper Co., 430 F. Supp. 981 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) (14% of the market insufficient to withstand defendant's motion for summary judgment). If ten percent of the market is insufficient as a matter of law, certainly the four percent held by Holiday Inns also is insufficient.

Although inquiry into whether Coca Cola had a reasonable probability of gaining a monopoly position was obviated by lack of evidence of specific intent in Sulmeyer, other authorities have addressed the point. While courts have often found market shares of ten percent or less inadequate to prove attempt, see generally Areeda Turner III, ¶ 835(c) at 348-49; Whitten v. Paddock Pool Builders, 508 F.2d 547 (1st Cir. 1974) (three percent), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 1004, 95 S.Ct. 2407, 44 L.Ed.2d 673 (1975); Mullis v. Arco Petroleum Corp., 502 F.2d 290, 297 (7th Cir. 1974) (three percent); I. Haas Trucking Co. v. New York Fruit Auction Corp., 364 F. Supp. 868, 874-75 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) (ten percent), market shares of twenty percent may raise attempt liability, depending on other characteristics of the market. Thus, in Yoder Brothers, 537 F.2d at 1368-69, we declined to find attempted monopolization in a case in which the defendant controlled 20 percent of the market but "[b]arriers to entry were low in the ornamental plant industry; conditions were highly competitive."

094 n. 1 (3d Cir. 1972) (dictum); Call Carl, Inc. v. BP Oil Corp., 403 F. Supp. 568, 572-73 (D.Md. 1975), aff'd on this issue, 554 F.2d 623, 628 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 923, 98 S.Ct. 400, 54 L.Ed.2d 280 (1977); Beckman v. Walter Kidde Co., 316 F. Supp. 1321, 1326 (S.D.N.Y. 1970), aff'd per curiam, 451 F.2d 593 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 408 U.S. 922, 92 S.Ct. 2488, 33 L.Ed.2d 333 (1972); or where the concerted action between the affiliated corporations restrains no outsider's trade, e. g., REA Express, Inc. v. Alabama Great Southern R. Co., 427 F. Supp. 1157 (S.D.N.Y. 1976), aff'd mem. sub nom. Sowerwine, Trustee in Bankruptcy v. United States, 431 U.S. 961, 97 S.Ct. 2914, 53 L.Ed.2d 1057 (1977); In re Penn Central Securities Litigation, 367 F. Supp. 1158, 1166-67 (E.D.Pa. 1973); see Report of the Attorney General's National Committee to Study the Antitrust Laws 34 (1955); or where there is no anticompetitive motive for the separate corporate status of the defendants, e. g., I. Haas Trucking Corp. v. New York Fruit Auction Corp., 364 F. Supp. 868, 873 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) (separate incorporation solely to accommodate separate unions); or where the affiliated corporations are for practical purposes "a single business unit," e. g., Giant Paper Film Corp. v. Albemarle Paper Co., 430 F. Supp. 981, 985-86 (S.D.N.Y. 1977); Beckman, supra, 316 F. Supp. at 1326; see Knutson v. Daily Review, Inc., 548 F.2d 795, 801 (9th Cir. 1976). The limitation on the intra-enterprise conspiracy doctrine which is most pertinent to the case at hand has been dubbed the "one-man show" exception, holding that affiliated corporations owned and controlled by a single individual are not capable of conspiring in restraint of trade.

The corporate structure itself determines whether there are separate units or one entity. ( In re Penn Central Securities Litigation (E.D.Pa. 1973) 367 F. Supp. 1158 (subsidiaries each covered a different geographical region); I. Haas Trucking Corp. v. N. Y. Fruit Auction Corp. (S.D.N.Y. 1973) 364 F. Supp. 868; See also, Beckman v. Walter Kidde Co., Inc. (E.D. N.Y. 1970) 316 F. Supp. 1321, aff'd (2d Cir. 1971) 451 F.2d 593.) Some courts have decided that there was in fact no conspiracy between people even where the corporate units might have conspired. For example, one person may be the sole decision-maker in two separate corporations so that there can be no conspiracy in the meeting-of-the-minds sense.

The two corporations do not compete; rather, their relationship is one of cooperation and integration. See Brager Co. v. Leumi Securities Corp., 429 F. Supp. 1341, 1345 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) (Weinfeld, J.), aff'd mem., 646 F.2d 559 (2d Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 987, 101 S.Ct. 2322, 68 L.Ed.2d 845 (1981); I. Haas Trucking Corp. v. New York Fruit Auction Corp., 364 F. Supp. 868, 873-74 (S.D.N.Y. 1973); Beckman v. Walter Kidde Co., 316 F. Supp. 1321, 1325-27 (E.D.N.Y. 1970), aff'd per curiam, 451 F.2d 593 (2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 408 U.S. 922, 92 S.Ct. 2488, 33 L.Ed.2d 333 (1971). Moreover, MacLaren Inc. was created from its parent, which wholly owns it.

(Court not convinced that $15,000 would meet the test, but $60,000 certainly would); AAMCO Automatic Transmissions, Inc. v. Tayloe, 407 F. Supp. 430, 436 (E.D.Pa. 1976) ($50,000 not insubstantial); Detroit City Dairy Inc. v. Kowalski Sausage Co., 393 F. Supp. 453, 472 (E.D.Mich. 1975) ($86,376 not insubstantial); Haas Trucking Corp. v. New York Fruit Auction Corp., 364 F. Supp. 868 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) ($31,000, $25,000, and $7,800 do not meet the substantially test).Cf. Petroleum for Contractors Inc. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 493 F. Supp. 320, 325 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) (plaintiffs failed to specify which of the purchases resulted from the alleged tie-in).

nited States v. Citizens Southern Nat'l Bank, 422 U.S. 86, 116-17, 95 S.Ct. 2099, 45 L.Ed.2d 41 (1975); Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v. International Parts Corp., 392 U.S. 134, 141-42, 88 S.Ct. 1981, 20 L.Ed.2d 982 (1968); Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram Sons, Inc., 340 U.S. 211, 215, 71 S.Ct. 259, 95 L.Ed. 219 (1951); United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 332 U.S. 218, 227, 67 S.Ct. 1560, 91 L.Ed. 2010 (1947); Brager Co. v. Leumi Securities Corp., 429 F. Supp. 1341, 1345 (S.D.N.Y. 1977).See Knutson v. Daily Review, Inc., 548 F.2d 795, 801-02 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 97 S.Ct. 2977, 53 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1977); George R. Whitten, Jr., Inc. v. Paddock Pool Bldrs., Inc., 508 F.2d 547, 557 (1st Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 1004, 95 S.Ct. 2407, 44 L.Ed.2d 673 (1975); Battle v. Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 493 F.2d 39, 44 (5th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1110, 95 S.Ct. 784, 42 L.Ed.2d 807 (1975); Sulmeyer v. Seven-Up Co., 411 F. Supp. 635, 639 (S.D.N.Y. 1976); I. Haas Trucking Corp. v. New York Fruit Auction Corp., 364 F. Supp. 868, 873 (S.D.N.Y. 1973); cf. Beckman v. Walter Kidde Co., 316 F. Supp. 1321, 1325-26 (E.D.N.Y. 1970), aff'd, 451 F.2d 593 (2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 408 U.S. 922, 92 S.Ct. 2488, 33 L.Ed.2d 333 (1972).Cf.

316 F. Supp. at 1326. See also I. Haas Trucking Corp. v. New York Fruit Auction Corp., 364 F. Supp. 868, 873 (S.D.N.Y. 1973). (b) Harvester's Sales Branches

Harvey v. Fearless Farris Wholesale, Inc., supra; Knutson v. Daily Review, Inc., supra; Giant Paper Film Corp. v. Albemarle Paper Co., 430 F. Supp. 981 (S.D.N.Y. 1977); Brager Co. v. Leumi Securities Corp., 429 F. Supp. 1341, 1345 (S.D.N.Y. 1977). Some other cases where federal courts have held that parent and subsidiary corporations were incapable of conspiring in violation of the Sherman Act, after noting the presence of other factors, include Ark Dental Supply Co. v. Cavitron Corp., 461 F.2d 1093 (3d Cir. 1972), aff'g, 323 F. Supp. 1145 (E.D. Pa. 1971); Sulmeyer v. Seven-up Co., 411 F. Supp. 635 (S.D.N Y 1976); I. Haas Trucking Corp. v. New York Fruit Auction Corp., 364 F. Supp. 868 (S.D.N.Y. 1973); Beckman v. Walter Kidde Co., 316 F. Supp. 1321 (E.D.N.Y. 1970), aff'd per curiam, 451 F.2d 593 (2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 408 U.S. 922 (1972). Contra Minnesota Bearing Co. v. White Motor Corp., 470 F.2d 1323 (8th Cir. 1973); Woods Exploration and Producing Co. v. Aluminum Co. of America, 438 F.2d 1286 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1047 (1972).