Sailun Group Co., Ltd. v. Spradley, 12-25-00102-CV, January 30, 2026.
On appeal from the 241st Judicial District Court of Smith County, Texas.
Synopsis
The Twelfth Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a foreign manufacturer’s special appearance, holding that a Chinese entity is subject to specific personal jurisdiction in Texas under the “stream of commerce plus” theory. The court determined that the manufacturer purposefully availed itself of the Texas market by establishing an intentional distribution and marketing network through a wholly owned subsidiary and domestic distributors that specifically targeted Texas consumers.
Relevance to Family Law
For the high-stakes family law litigator, this ruling provides a powerful jurisdictional roadmap for cases involving complex property divisions where a spouse holds interests in foreign manufacturing or holding companies. When a community estate includes foreign entities that claim to have no “presence” in Texas, Sailun Group confirms that physical absence is no shield if the entity exploits the Texas market through a subsidiary or a distribution chain. This precedent is vital for joining foreign entities as third-party defendants in divorce actions to secure a just and right division of assets or to prevent the fraudulent transfer of community property to offshore “unreachable” entities.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The underlying litigation arose from a catastrophic tire failure on a Texas highway involving a Terramax HLT tire manufactured by Sailun Group Co., Ltd. (“Sailun”), a Chinese corporation. Sailun challenged the trial court’s jurisdiction, asserting it was merely a foreign manufacturer with no offices, employees, or property in Texas, and that its products reached the state only through the independent decisions of third-party distributors. However, the evidence revealed a more integrated structure. Sailun utilized a wholly owned Canadian subsidiary, Sailun Tire Americas (STA), to conduct North American marketing. STA, in turn, entered into distribution agreements that specifically facilitated the sale of Sailun tires through a network of dealers in Texas. The plaintiffs presented evidence of a “Dealer Map” on a marketing website (GoSailun.com) and “ride-and-drive” events held within Texas to feature Sailun’s products.
Issues Decided
- Whether a foreign manufacturer establishes specific personal jurisdiction under the “stream of commerce plus” theory by utilizing a subsidiary and a distribution network to target the Texas market.
- Whether the lack of a physical presence or “direct” sales by a foreign parent company precludes a finding of purposeful availment.
- Whether the litigation results from or relates to the foreign entity’s contacts with the forum state when the specific product was sold through a targeted distribution chain.
Rules Applied
The court applied the “stream of commerce plus” doctrine, which requires more than the mere anticipation that a product will end up in a forum. Under Spir Star AG v. Kimich and Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, Texas courts look for “additional conduct” indicating an intent or design to serve the market in the forum state. This includes designing the product for the forum, advertising in the forum, establishing channels for providing regular advice to customers in the forum, or marketing the product through a distributor who has agreed to serve as the sales agent in the forum state.
Application
The court’s analysis focused on the “plus” factors beyond the mere act of placing a tire into the stream of commerce. Although Sailun argued it had no direct control over where its tires were shipped, the court found that Sailun created and employed a distribution system specifically designed to bring its products into Texas. The court emphasized that Sailun’s wholly owned subsidiary, STA, was the engine of its North American marketing and that STA’s coordination with domestic distributors like TBC Corporation created a “channel for providing regular service” to Texas consumers.
The legal story here is one of integrated intent: Sailun manufactured the tires, its subsidiary marketed them, and its distributors sold them via a map that prominently featured Texas locations. The court rejected the “isolated sale” defense, noting that Sailun’s business model relied on a steady flow of products into Texas. Consequently, the court found that Sailun’s activities were not “random, isolated, or fortuitous,” but rather a deliberate exploitation of the Texas economy.
Holding
The Court of Appeals held that Sailun purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in Texas. The court found that the “stream of commerce plus” test was satisfied by the evidence of a targeted distribution network and localized marketing efforts conducted through its subsidiary and distributors.
The court further held that the appellees’ claims for products liability and wrongful death arose directly from Sailun’s contacts with Texas. Because the specific tire that failed was sold in Smith County through the very distribution chain Sailun established, the nexus between the forum, the defendant, and the litigation was sufficiently established to satisfy due process.
Practical Application
In complex divorce litigation, use Sailun Group to defeat special appearances filed by foreign entities. If a spouse’s business is structured as a foreign manufacturer (e.g., in China or Mexico) but utilizes a domestic subsidiary or an “independent” distributor to move products into the Texas market, you can establish jurisdiction for discovery and joinder. This is particularly effective when the foreign entity maintains a website with a “Texas Dealer Locator” or participates in Texas-based trade shows, as these constitute the “plus” factors necessary to anchor jurisdiction.
Checklists
Evidence to Defeat a Foreign Entity’s Special Appearance
- Corporate Structure: Obtain the organizational chart showing the relationship between the foreign parent and domestic subsidiaries.
- Distribution Agreements: Subpoena contracts between the foreign entity and domestic distributors to find clauses regarding “territory” (specifically targeting Texas).
- Digital Footprint: Archive “Dealer Locators” or “Where to Buy” maps on the entity’s website that include Texas zip codes.
- Marketing Events: Look for evidence of the foreign entity (or its subsidiary) sponsoring or attending trade shows, “ride-and-drives,” or industry conventions in Texas.
- Import Records: Use Customs and Border Protection data to track the flow of goods from the foreign entity to Texas-based ports or distributors.
Drafting the Jurisdictional Allegations
- Allege that the entity “designed, manufactured, and marketed” products specifically for the Texas market.
- Pleaded the “stream of commerce plus” theory explicitly, citing the integrated distribution network.
- Detail the “additional conduct” (the “plus” factors) such as localized advertising or the use of a subsidiary as a marketing agent.
Citation
Sailun Group Co., Ltd. v. Spradley, No. 12-25-00102-CV (Tex. App.—Tyler Jan. 30, 2026, no pet. h.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
This ruling is a “weapon” for piercing the jurisdictional veil in cases of “divorce by offshore manufacturing.” When a spouse attempts to shield community assets by claiming that a profitable family-owned manufacturing business is “strictly Chinese” or “purely Canadian” and therefore outside the trial court’s reach, Sailun Group provides the rebuttal. If that entity sells anything in Texas through a structured network, it is likely subject to the court’s jurisdiction. This allows the family law practitioner to join the entity to the divorce, conduct internal audits of the foreign company’s books, and ensure that the community’s interest in the foreign enterprise is accurately valued and divided. It effectively ends the “jurisdictional shell game” often played in high-net-worth property disputes.
~~24f815ad-8e34-4533-8462-9e507daf690e~~
Share this content: