With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 68 S.Ct. 855, 92 L.Ed. 1091 (1948) (citation omitted). In construing that language, other courts have been mindful of the need to respect the separate corporate identities of parents and subsidiaries. Consequently, a parent’s passive investment in a subsidiary will not confer venue under the concept of “transacting business.” See Tiger Trash v. Browning-Ferris Indus., Inc., 560 F.2d 818, 823 (7th Cir.1977). However, the distinction must be made between the idea of a parent transacting business through a subsidiary — which implies some sort of agency or alter ego relationship — and transacting business with the subsidiary — which means that the parent has some business dealings with the subsidiary within the district. See Campos v. Ticketmaster Corp., 140 F.3d 1166, 1173 (8th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted). The Court finds that this

A: holding that in order to prevent parent from carrying out anticompetitive activity through subsidiary test for venue is whether parents control over subsidiary caused parent to transact business in state within venue provision of clayton act
B: 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
C: holding that a parent must exercise some control over the subsidiarys activities which does not require that the subsidiary be controlled to an ultimate degree by its parent  although something more than mere passive investment by the parent is required the parent must have and exercise control and direction  over the affairs of its subsidiary in order for venue to be proper
D: 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
C.