of corporate officers and the appointment of accountants occur at the annual Board of Directors meetings held in New York. Indeed, the record contains almost no evidence of corporate activity on the part of either Lerfer or Calumet taking place outside of New York. Despite these uncontroverted facts, the district court concluded that the principal place of business of both Lerfer and Calumet was Puerto Rico. In so doing, the court rejected appellants’ characterization of Lerfer and Calumet as “passive” holding companies and found that their raison d’etre included the operation of the Hotel: Only a[n] unrealistically narrow view of the orientation of the corporations and their partnership could yield such a conc ecurities Ltd. v. IB Resolution, Inc., 924 F.2d 1114, 1120 (D.C.Cir.) (<HOLDING>) (citing U.S.I. Properties Corp., 860 F.2d at
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 was alterego of its subsidiary and was being sued for acts of its subsidiary recognizing separate corporate identity of parent despite evidence that subsidiary performed the lions share of the film production for the parent holding that parent is liable for acts of subsidiary under agency theory only if parent dominates subsidiary parent of whollyowned subsidiary that had seats on board took part in financing and approved major policy decisions was not liable because parent did not have daytoday control 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