see also MacNamara v. Korean Air Lines, 863 F.2d 1135, 1145 (3rd Cir.1988) (“[T]he provision was necessary for the limited purpose of securing to foreign investors the freedom to place their own citizens in key management positions.”) (interpreting similar provision in United States-Korean Treaty), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 944, 110 S.Ct. 349, 107 L.Ed.2d 337 (1989). Thus, Article VIII to a limited extent permits Japanese companies to discriminate in favor of their fellow citizens because of their citizenship. III. Standing to Assert Rights of Parent As a domestic corporation, UAC has no rights under Article VIII(l), because Article VIII(l) applies only to “companies of [Japan].” Sumitomo Shoji Am., Inc. v. Avagliano, 457 U.S. 176, 189, 102 S.Ct. 2374, 2381, 72 L.Ed.2d 765 (1982) (<HOLDING>). Sumi-tomo limited its ruling to the
recognizing separate corporate identity of parent despite evidence that parent was alterego of its subsidiary and was being sued for acts of its subsidiary holding that american subsidiary of a japanese parent had no treaty defense because the subsidiary was not a company of japan holding that a parent company was not liable for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty by its subsidiary because the parent company was not a stranger to the business relationship between its subsidiary and the plaintiff giving rise to and underpinning the contract holding that parent is liable for acts of subsidiary under agency theory only if parent dominates subsidiary parent of whollyowned subsidiary that had seats on board took part in financing and approved major policy decisions was not liable because parent did not have daytoday control holding that a close relationship between a parent corporation and a subsidiary may justify finding that the parent engages in business in the jurisdiction through the local activities of its subsidiary