The corporations were formed to act as owners of the [Hotel]. They devote almost all of their corporate activity to administer their assets in the partnership. They actively authorized the formation of Taber and the obtaining of a bond to assist in the financing of the projects. They have loaned substantial amounts of money to Taber. And the directors of the partnership, Mr. and Ms. Romano, are the directors of the corporations. Under these circumstances, the Court cannot accept the characterization of the corporations’ interests in Taber as passive. The Court therefore considers of greater significance the location of the corporations’ primary activity. This activity is the renovation and operation of the [Hotel], which is located in Puert p., 979 F.2d 772, 774-75 (9th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>) (citing Lugo-Vina, 574 F.2d at 43-44); Pyramid
recognizing separate corporate identity of subsidiary holding company despite evidence that it could not act without the express permission of its parent and that its sole function was to serve as financial conduit for parent 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 recognizing separate corporate identity of parent despite evidence that subsidiary performed the lions share of the film production for the parent holding that to establish that subsidiary is agent of parent for jurisdictional purposes the parent must exert control that is so pervasive and continual that the subsidiary may be considered an agent or instrumentality of the parent notwithstanding the maintenance of corporate formalities recognizing separate corporate identity of parent despite evidence that parent was alterego of its subsidiary and was being sued for acts of its subsidiary