Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): is (1) its alter ego, (2) a mere department of it, or (3) its agent. See Brooks v. Bacardi Rum Corp., 943 F.Supp. 559, 562-63 (E.D.Pa.1996) (reciting the three tests under which a subsidiary’s contacts can be imputed to the parent); see also Arch, 984 F.Supp. at 837 (suggesting comprehensive approach whereby “all relevant factors” contained in the three tests are considered at once). Jurisdiction based on agency is proper where “the subsidiary is necessarily performing activities that the parent would otherwise have to perform in the absence of the subsidiaryf.]” In re Latex Gloves Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 1148, 2001 WL 964105, at *3 n. 10 (E.D.Pa. Aug.22, 2001) (quoting Arch, 984 F.Supp. at 837). See also Gallagher v. Mazda Motor of Am., 781 F.Supp. 1079, 1084-86 (E.D.Pa.1992) (<HOLDING>). This is in contrast to a nonresident holding 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a parent corporations contacts may not be imputed to its subsidiary (B) holding that parent corporation could not be held liable for any acts of whollyowned subsidiary although boards of directors of the two corporations overlapped in all other respects corporation had not disregarded subsidiarys corporate separateness had not involved itself directly in management of subsidiary and had not otherwise dominated or controlled subsidiary (C) recognizing separate corporate identity of parent despite evidence that parent consolidated its profits and losses with that of its whollyowned subsidiary in presenting parents financial reports to shareholders that subsidiary was considered a division of parent and that subsidiary accounted for 60 of parents and subsidiarys combined operations (D) holding that a parent must exercise some control over the subsidiarys activities which does not require that the subsidiary be controlled to an ultimate degree by its parent  although something more than mere passive investment by the parent is required the parent must have and exercise control and direction  over the affairs of its subsidiary in order for venue to be proper (E) holding that a subsidiarys contacts can be imputed for purposes of service of process where a parent uses the subsidiary to do what it otherwise would have done itself 
Output (English): holding that parent corporation could not be held liable for any acts of whollyowned subsidiary although boards of directors of the two corporations overlapped in all other respects corporation had not disregarded subsidiarys corporate separateness had not involved itself directly in management of subsidiary and had not otherwise dominated or controlled subsidiary