CK • Washington.   Als ein Kunde eine vertragliche Haftungsfreistellung von seiner Lieferantin verlangte, verschmolz deren Muttergesellschaft diese mit einer anderen Tochter. Der Kunde behauptet, die vertragliche Gerichtsstandsklausel für Gerichte in Michigan sei nun auf die Mutter wie die zweite Tochter im Wege des Durchgriffs anwendbar. Das Gericht erstreckt seine Zuständigkeit auf die rechtsnachfolgende Tochter und fasst mit Blick auf die Mutter die für den Durchgriff erforderlichen Merkmale so zusammen:

Michigan courts consider several factors, but none is dispositive, and the list is not exhaustive. They include: [I]f the parent and subsidiary share principal offices, if they share board members or executives, if all of the parent's revenue comes from the subsidiary's sales, if all capital is provided by the parent, if the subsidiary purchases supplies exclusively from the parent, if the subsidiary is seriously under-capitalized, if the parent regularly provided gratuitous services to the subsidiary, if the parent handled the subsidiary's payroll, if the parent directed the policies and decisions of the subsidiary, and if the parent considered the subsidiary's project to be its own.

Dominanz der Mutter über die Tochter lägen wie die strategische Kontrolle vor, behauptete die Kundin. Zudem seien die Steuererklärungen im Konzern konsolidiert und Büros würden geteilt, sodass die Mutter die Finanzrisiken der Töchter trüge. Das Bundesberufungsgericht des Sechsten Bezirks der USA in Cincinnati entschied in H&H Wholesale Services Inc. v. Kamstra International BV am 24. November 2021 hingegen gegen die Ausübung seiner Gerichtsbarkeit, weil andere Durchgriffsfaktoren nicht nur behauptet, sondern auch als entscheidend bewiesen bewiesen sind:

… B&S showed that the remaining factors under Michigan law were unsatisfied, and H&H either failed to controvert these facts or merely responded with allegations in its complaint. For instance: B&S's affidavit said that Kamstra bought its own supplies, kept separate financial records, paid its share of taxes, had separate inventory and assets, was not wholly capitalized by B&S, generated its own revenue, and managed its own payroll. Likewise, B&S attached the stock-purchase agreement between Kamstra and Kafa, which showed that Kamstra sold its assets to Kafa for "book value" and that Kafa agreed to return any profits to Kamstra. Public corporate records at the time also showed that Kamstra had substantial assets during 2017 and into 2019, indicating that Kamstra was not left "underfunded" and that B&S did not liquidate Kamstra for "little or no consideration" as H&H alleged.