(quoting First Nat'l City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba, 462 U.S. 611, 633, 103 S.Ct. 2591, 77 L.Ed.2d 46 (1983)). 33 . Id. (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 1). Accord Itel Containers Int’l Corp. v. Atlanttrafik Exp. Serv. Ltd., 909 F.2d 698, 702-03 (2d Cir.1990) (establishing similar standards concerning express and implied agency). 34 . See Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 226 F.3d 88, 95-96 (2d Cir.2000). See also In re Parmalat Secs. Litig., 375 F.Supp.2d 278, 295 (S.D.N.Y.2005) (seeking “direction and help” from the parent company creates a plausible inference of agency). 35 . Phelan v. Local 305 of the United Ass'n of Journeymen, 973 F.2d 1050, 1062 (2d Cir.1992). Accord Doro v. Sheet Metal Workers Int’l Ass’n, 498 F.3d 152, 156 (2d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). 36 . Hamm v. United States, 483 F.3d 135, 140
holding that determination of whether someone is an employee under the adea must be made in accordance with common law agency principles recognizing that common law agency principles extend the right to sue a principal that ratifies the illegal act of an agent holding that while an agents knowledge is imputed to the principal due to the identity of interests that is presumed when an agent acts within the scope of an agency relation this rule does not operate in the converse and the agent cannot be imputed with the information which its principal has failed to give it holding that agency relationship existed where principal paid plaintiff directly and written agreement stated agent was signing on behalf of principal holding that a principal is bound by a contract entered into by the principals agent on her behalf if the agent had authority to bind the principal