Opinion ID: 23127
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: amount of stock owned by the parent of the

Text: subsidiary; (2) did the two corporations have separate headquarters; (3) did they have common officers and directors; (4) did they observe corporate formalities; (5) did they maintain separate accounting systems; (6) did the parent exercise complete authority over general policy; (7) did the subsidiary exercise complete authority over daily operations. Dickson Marine, 179 F.3d at 339 (citing Hargrave, 710 F.2d at 1160). Although Hargrave analyzed the elements necessary to subject a parent to personal jurisdiction because of the activities of its subsidiary, “the same legal principles apply” when jurisdiction is sought over the subsidiary because of the 7 activities of its parent. Walker v. Newgent, 583 F.2d 163, 167 (5th Cir. 1978) (based on agency relationship between parent and its subsidiary, parent’s contacts with forum state may be imputed to subsidiary), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 906 (1979). Courts presume the institutional independence of related corporations when determining if one’s contacts with a forum state can be the basis for a related corporation’s contacts. Dickson Marine, 179 F.3d at 338. This presumption may only be overcome by clear evidence, with the “burden ... on the proponent of the agency/alter ego theory”. Id. Appellants have not shown, by the requisite clear evidence, such a relationship between Tyson and Universal Investments. Tyson owns a substantial amount of Universal Investments’ stock, and, thus, exercises authority over its general policy and daily operations. However, the corporations have different corporate headquarters. Further, Appellants have not shown: that Tyson and Universal Investments share common officers or directors; that they have failed to observe corporate formalities; or that they do not maintain separate accounting systems.