a judgment in the case. This extension of jurisdiction is necessary to ensure the court’s ability to enforce a judgment rendered against the judgment debtor. As the Court remarked in Peacock, ancillary enforcement jurisdiction is “at its core, a creature of necessity.” 516 U.S. at 359, 116 S.Ct. 862. Thus these proceedings can reach third parties so long as it is necessary to reach assets of the judgment debtor under the control of the third party in order to satisfy the original judgment and thereby guarantee its eventual executability. In many ways this case gives the appearance of fitting within this traditional paradigm of enforcement jurisdiction. After all, the claim is in part that the assets of CDC were in effect transferred from the judgment , 454 F.2d 871 (1st Cir.1972) (<HOLDING>). While it is true that one might envision
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 whollyowned subsidiary and partnership in which that subsidiary is the general partner may invoke the two dismissals of the subsidiarys parent and claim rule 41a1 res judicata holding parent company bound in subsequent action by res judicata effect of judgment against subsidiary holding that res judicata did not preclude the subsequent filing of an action which was a permissive claim in a prior action holding parent corporation which controlled litigation on behalf of subsidiary bound by judgment