In the Fears V.Wilhelmina Model Agency,Inc.case,the Court Held

In the Fears v.Wilhelmina Model Agency,Inc.case,the court held:

A) parallel business behavior conclusively establishes agreement sufficient to constitute a Sherman Act offense.
B) in this case the defendants did not possess a common rational motive to conspire.
C) plaintiffs offering parallel conduct as evidence of an antitrust conspiracy must demonstrate additional circumstances in order to infer a conspiracy.
D) plaintiffs did not need to demonstrate "plus factors" in this case since the defendants' conduct was egregious.