X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Consumers bought an extension cord at Wal-Mart in 2000. Because of injuries the consumers suffered in a mobile home fire that they said were caused by the defective cord, the consumers sued Leviton Manufacturing Co. and another company for negligent manufacture. Leviton filed a cross-claim for indemnification against the other company, whic then filed a special appearance contesting jurisdiction over it. In the hearing on the special appearance, Leviton claimed that a company called Ho Wah Genting Berhad acquired a controlling interest in Kintron Sdn Bhd. After this acquisition, according to Leviton, the company changed its name to Ho Wah Genting Kintron Sdn Bhd (“HWG Kintron”). Kintron Sdn Bhd ceased to exist after the acquisition. Leviton further asserted that, when HWG Kintron was still Kintron Sdn Bhd, it formed contacts with Texas by maintaining an office in Dallas, by employing representatives in Texas, and by soliciting business � including at Wal-Mart � in Texas. The trial court denied HWG Kintron’s special appearance. On appeal, HWG Kintron contends its correct name is Ho Wah Genting Kintron Sdn Bhd, and it was not doing business as or formerly known by a different name. HOLDING:Affirmed. In response to the first issue raised by HWG Kintron, the court finds that Leviton met its initial pleading burden to put HWG Kintron on notice that Leviton sought to assert its claims against HWG Kintron in its corporate form as it currently exists, as it was doing business as, and as it was formerly known as. Based on the above finding, the court also finds that evidence considered by the trial court on the other entities was properly admitted and considered by the trial court. Furthermore, the documentary evidence were not hearsay, because none of it was introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The court then reviews several of the trial court’s findings to see if they are supported by the evidence. Though there it is undisputed that Ho Wah Genting Berhad and Kintron Sdn Bhd existed as separate entities prior to 2001, that Ho Wah Genting Berhad acquired Kintron Sdn Bhd in 2001, and that after the acquisition Kintron Sdn Bhd changed its name to Ho Way Genting Kintron Sdn Bhd, there is nonetheless no evidence indicating the manner in which the acquisition took place. Consequently, nothing in the record support an implied finding that HWG Kintron is the successor-in-interest to Kintron Sdn Bhd under a stock merger transaction. Leviton’s theory that HWG is the successor-in-interest in Kintron Sdn Bhd by way of a name change, on the other hand, is supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence. HWG Kintron’s marketing director indicated (through convoluted deposition testimony) that the prior company was one and the same with the new company named HWG Kintron. The court then holds that HWG Kintron had sufficient contacts with Texas to justify exercising specific jurisdiction over it. HWG Kintron purposefully directed its activities at Texas and had a reasonable expectation that its product would enter Texas. There was evidence that HWG Kintron was aware that its shipment orders called for delivery of its goods to Texas stores, and it shipped its cords directly to Texas retailers such as Michaels Stores and Garden Ridge. HWG Kintron admits two Texas companies, Austin Innovations and Hikari Corporation, were customers of Kintron Sdn Bhd. HWG Kintron also complies with the Underwriters Laboratory electrical standards for cords sold in the United States. Furthermore, when the extension cords at issue were purchased, HWG Kintron maintained a U.S. liaison office in Dallas. The court adds that the mere fact that HWG Kintron is a foreign company does not mean that the notions of fair play and substantial justice would be offended by exercising jurisdiction over the company. The court says it also appears that Texas has a strong interest in adjudicating this dispute, as the underlying suit relates to thousands of possibly defective extension cords shipped to Texas. OPINION:Marion, J.; Stone, Duncan and Marion, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.