534 F.2d 19, 21 (2d Cir.1976)). Plaintiffs also point to record evidence that the bank holding company defendants and their subsidiaries shared common officers and directors (Decl. of Joseph S. Tusa, Dec. 20, 2006, Ex. 1; Decl. of Joseph S. Tusa, Mar. 2, 2007, Exs. Y, PP), but this Resnick factor, without more than otherwise indicated in the instant case, is insufficient as a matter of law to establish alter ego liability of a parent corporation. See Greene v. Long Island R.R. Co., 280 F.3d 224, 235 (2d Cir.2002) (“[Corporate ownership of a subsidiary and overlapping offices and directorates are not, without more, sufficient to impose liability on the parent for conduct of the subsidiary!.]”); see also In re Amaranth Natural Gas Commodities Litig., 587 F.Supp.2d 513, 538 (S.D.N.Y.2008) (<HOLDING>); In re Ski Train Fire in Kaprun, Austria on
holding that ownership and overlapping directors are insufficient standing alone to pierce the corporate veil holding that where one plaintiff has standing we need not consider whether the other individual and corporate plaintiffs have standing to maintain the suit holding that disproportionate impact standing alone was insufficient to prove unconstitutional racial discrimination holding that selfserving deposition testimony standing alone is insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment holding irrelevant the argument that a directors conduct amounting to minimum contacts was unauthorized where the directors employer ratified the directors conduct