Akzona Inc. v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that even though complete ownership and management overlap existed, the agency theory failed because the subsidiary “independently handled routine, day-to-day operations, maintained separate books and had significant rights and obligations apart from its parent”
• blurring corporate separateness in language of annual report, overlap of boards of directors, parental approval of large capital expenditures, and parental guaranty of third-party loans to subsidiary insufficient to establish alter ego relationship
• language of annual report and employee testimony describing subsidiaries as divisions of parent not sufficient, even in conjunction with other evidence, to establish alter ego relationship
• language of annual report and employee testimony describing subsidiaries as divisions of parent not sufficient, even in conjunction with other evidence, to establish alter ego relationship
• “[The plaintiff] has not established that [the defendant] interferes in the day-to-day operations of its subsidiaries but only that it oversees and approves major capital expenditures.”
• language of annual report and employee testimony describing subsidiaries as divisions of parent not sufficient, even in conjunction with other evidence, to establish alter ego relationship

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).