(“An agency relationship results only when there is an understanding between the parties that creates a fiduciary relationship under which the fiduciary is subject to the directions of the principal and acts on account of the principal.”). Key in “determining whether an agency relationship exists is the principal’s right of control.” Gardin, 661 N.W.2d at 199; Benson, 593 N.W.2d at 130. Wright’s sole allegations relate to statements made by Chagra, where Chagra says he was “speaking on behalf of [Goodman].” His pleadings contain no manifestations by Goodman that Chagra could act on his behalf. Additionally, Wright points to no conduct or acts of Goodman that ratified Chagra’s conduct. See, e.g., Wessels, Arnold & Henderson v. Nat’l Med. Waste, Inc., 65 F.3d 1427, 1433 (8th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Thus, Wright has not pointed to minimally
holding that removal without cause was proper because directors have no vested right to hold office in defiance of a properly expressed will of the majority holding irrelevant the argument that a directors conduct amounting to minimum contacts was unauthorized where the directors employer ratified the directors conduct holding that ownership and overlapping directors are insufficient standing alone to pierce the corporate veil holding no specific jurisdiction where alleged tortious conduct was not related to defendants contacts with texas holding that parratt does apply to intentional conduct if the conduct is unauthorized