to justify general jurisdiction over the parent based on the presence of the subsidiary, the party moving the court to assert jurisdiction must demonstrate that the subsidiary is an “alter ego” of the parent. Id., at 218. To establish that a subsidiary is the alter ego of the parent, the party seeking jurisdiction must show that “[t]he degree of control exer cised by the parent must be greater than that normally associated with common ownership and directorship.” Id., at 219 (quoting Hargrave v. Fibreboard Corp., 710 F.2d 1154, 1160 (5th Cir.1983)). Even “100% stock ownership and commonality of officers and directors are not alone sufficient to establish an alter ego relationship between two corporations.” Id.; see also Gardemal v. Westin Hotel Co., 186 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). In order to find an alter ego relationship,
holding that a parent corporations contacts may not be imputed to its subsidiary 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 holding that a close relationship between a parent corporation and a subsidiary may justify finding that the parent engages in business in the jurisdiction through the local activities of its subsidiary holding that a parents ownership of subsidiary and facts that the same people served as directors of both companies and that a parent was involved in macromanagement and finances of subsidiary did not satisfy first prong of alter ego test and thus the court did not need to reach second prong dealing with equities holding that a subsidiary is not an alter ego of its parent even when the corporations are closely tied through stock ownership shared officers financing arrangements and the like