With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". tends to exclude the possibility that the defendants acted independently or legitimately.” U.S. Anchor, 7 F.3d at 1002. As a threshold matter, the parties debate whether Defendant Board is legally capable of conspiring with its Directors to restrain trade. Generally, a corporation and its officers or directors cannot form a Section 1 conspiracy. See Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752, 769-72, 104 S.Ct. 2731, 2741-42, 81 L.Ed.2d 628 (1984). This circuit has determined, howev er, that an exception to this general rule exists where plaintiff demonstrates that corporate officers have a personal stake in achieving the object of the alleged conspiracy. Tiftarea Shopper, Inc. v. Georgia Shopper, Inc., 786 F.2d 1115, 1116 (11th Cir.1986); see also Bolt, 891 F.2d at 819 (<HOLDING>). The nonprofit Defendant in this case is a

A: holding a corporation cannot conspire with its officers and agents to restrain trade in its own products
B: holding that a hospitals bylaws are an integral part of its contractual relationship with the members of its medical staff
C: holding that a hospital can conspire with members of its medical staff
D: recognizing that at least for certain purposes a hospital room is fully under the control of the medical staff yet for other purposes it is the patients room  because patient understands that nurses doctors food handlers and others enter and exit hospital room in accordance with medical need and hospital routine
C.