TBC, Inc. v. DEI Holdings, Inc. (Maryland U.S.D.C.)

Filed: March 24, 2015

Opinion by: Catherine D. Blake

Holdings:

(1)   A corporate entity, in acquiring the assets of a predecessor, cannot be held liable solely based on continued use of a predecessor’s trade name, sale of a predecessor’s products, and retention of some of a predecessor’s accounts and employees.  

(2)   When a party does not allege facts to show that a corporate parent used its subsidiary “as a mere shield for the perpetration of fraud,” that party does not state a claim against the parent for the subsidiary’s obligations.

(3)   A party may state a claim for breach of contract without alleging perfect performance of its own obligations under the contract.

(4)   Maryland law does not recognize an independent cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealings.

(5)   A party may obtain restitution on the theory of unjust enrichment, despite the existence of an express contract, when the party breaches the express contract.

Facts:

Parent Defendant ("Parent") was the corporate parent of two subsidiaries, Subsidiary 1 and Subsidiary 2.  Additionally, four divisions of Parent were unincorporated until they formed LLCs in February 2014. 

Plaintiff, an advertising and public relations agency, was hired by Subsidiary 1, a consumer electronics vendor, to provide marketing services.  In 2011, Subsidiary 1 agreed to pay Plaintiff $12,500 each month for 83 hours of work per month.  In 2012, Subsidiary 2 hired Plaintiff under a similar agreement.  Plaintiff performed work beyond the monthly retainer for both entities and was paid additional fees accordingly. 

Subsidiary 1 later retained Plaintiff to perform advertising and marketing services for a new line of products on the terms outlined in the 2011 contract.  In 2013, Plaintiff worked 3,000 more hours than the 83 hours per month contemplated in the 2011 contract.  Despite this additional work, Plaintiff was paid monthly fees in 2013 based on the budgeted 83 hours per month.  Based on the experience of its leadership, Subsidiary 1 knew based on the nature of the requested work that it would require substantially more than 83 hours each month. 

In June 2013, Plaintiff’s Executive Vice President (the “VP”) met with three executives of Parent to discuss compensation for Plaintiff’s work in excess of the monthly budget.  The executives assured the VP that Plaintiff would be paid in full for the additional hours.  In August 2013, one of Parent's executives again told the VP that Plaintiff would be paid in full, and Plaintiff continued to perform more work until the Parent's executives informed the VP in January 2014 that Plaintiff’s services would no longer be needed.  Plaintiff was never paid for the 3,000 hours of additional work performed in 2013.

In February 2014, four LLCs (the “LLC defendants”) were formed from the four unincorporated divisions of Parent.  Subsidiary 1 also merged into Subsidiary 2. 

In September 2014, Plaintiff sued Parent, Subsidiary 1, Subsidiary 2 and the four LLCs alleging, inter alia, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealings, and unjust enrichment.  All defendants moved to dismiss. 

Analysis: 

(1)   The court first considered whether Plaintiff stated a claim against the LLC defendants.  Under the general rule of corporate successor liability, a corporate entity acquiring assets from another entity does not acquire the liabilities of its predecessor.  An exception is where the successor entity is a “mere continuation or reincarnation” of the predecessor entity.  The exception applies where there is continuity among directors and management, common shareholder interest, and, in some cases, inadequate consideration in the transaction.  Use of the predecessor’s trade name, sale of a predecessor’s products, and retention of the predecessor’s accounts and employees will not alone suffice.  Because the contracts predated the existence of the LLC defendants, and Plaintiff only alleged the latter three factors, Plaintiff failed to state a claim against the LLC defendants.

(2)   Next, the court considered Plaintiff’s claims against Parent.  In general, a parent corporation is not liable for the obligations of its subsidiaries.  The “corporate veil” may be pierced only in circumstances when it is necessary to prevent fraud or enforce a paramount equity, i.e., when the parent uses the subsidiary as a “mere shield” to commit fraud.  Plaintiff never contracted directly with Parent, but instead it contracted with Subsidiary 1 and Subsidiary 2.  Because Plaintiff did not allege facts to support Parent’s use of its subsidiaries to perpetuate fraud, Plaintiff failed to state any cause of action against Parent. 

(3)   The court then turned to Plaintiff’s contract claim against Subsidiary 2.  To state a claim for breach of contract under Maryland law, a plaintiff must only show (1) the existence of a contractual obligation owed by defendant to the plaintiff and (2) a material breach of that obligation by the defendant.  A plaintiff is not required to show that it complied with every procedural obligation described in the agreement.  Here, Plaintiff did not allege that it had obtained approval for additional work or that timely billed for the work, but these omissions were not fatal to the claim.  Plaintiff met its burden by alleging that (1) Subsidiary 2 was contractually obligated to pay for additional services beyond those contemplated in the 83 hour budget and (2) Subsidiary 2 failed to pay Plaintiff in breach of that obligation. 

(4)   The court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim of breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealings, noting that Maryland does not recognize this as an independent cause of action.

(5)   Lastly, the court addressed Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim.  In Maryland, a claim of unjust enrichment may not be brought where the subject of the claim is covered by an express contract.  An exception to this rule occurs when there has been a breach of contract, in which case a party may obtain restitution on the theory of unjust enrichment.  If a jury finds that Plaintiff did not substantially perform under the agreement, thereby rejecting Plaintiff’s contract claim, then Plaintiff may still recover for unjust enrichment.  Both the contract and unjust enrichment claims may stand as alternative, inconsistent theories of liability.

The opinion is available in PDF.

Schlossberg v. Bell Builders Remodeling, Inc. (Ct. of Appeals)

Filed:  February 20, 2015

Opinion by: Clayton Greene, Jr.

Holding:  A court may disregard the corporate formality to prevent a paramount inequity and fraud is not required.  

Analysis:  This ruling comes from a certified question sought by the Bankruptcy Court. The Court relied on Hildreth v. Tidewater Equip. Co. Inc., which sets forth that piercing the corporate veil is proper for fraud or to prevent a paramount inequity. The Court determined that preventing a paramount inequity is sufficient grounds to disregard the corporate formality.

The full opinion is available in PDF.

Gregg Lapointe v. SIGMA TAU Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Filed: September 11, 2013 

Opinion by Michael D. Mason 

Holdings:  (1) A parent corporation is allowed to interfere with the subsidiary's contracts without liability under the "unity of interest" doctrine.  This privilege is not absolute, however.  It does not exist if the parent acts contrary to the interests of the subsidiary or interferes with a contract with a third party by use of wrongful means.  The burden of establishing a privilege lies with the complaining party. 

(2) If a privilege is found, it would extend to a shareholder with a controlling interest in the parent corporation. 

Facts:  Plaintiffs, former employees of corporate defendant's wholly owned subsidiary, alleged that the corporate defendant and its largest shareholder (also an individually named defendant) tortuously interfered with plaintiffs' long-benefit plan causing a refusal to pay benefits to which plaintiffs were entitled.  

Defendants filed motion to dismiss arguing that even assuming wrongful interference, no liability exists when a parent interferes in a contract between its wholly owned subsidiary and a third party because there is a "unity of interest" between the parent and its subsidiary.  The largest shareholder of the parent also claimed benefit to this doctrine.


Analysis:  Although Maryland courts have discussed the issue of whether the unity of interest doctrine applies to tortious interference claims involving a parent corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary, they have not adopted it.  In Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., the U.S. Supreme Court held that a parent corporation could not be prosecuted for an antitrust violation involving its subsidiary because a parent and its wholly owned subsidiary have a complete unity of interest. 

However, as the principle relates to a parent corporation’s liability for tortious interference with the contractual agreement of its subsidiaries, most courts that have adopted the doctrine have done so with limitations.  In Waste Conversion Sys., Inc. v. Greenstone Indus., Inc., 33 S.W.3d 779, 781 (Tenn. 2000), the Supreme Court of Tennessee held that a parent could lose its privilege if (1) acting contrary to its wholly-owned subsidiary’s economic interests the parent can be considered a third party to its subsidiary's contractual relationship and can be held for tortuously interfering with that relationship; and (2) it employs wrongful means even if the parent does not act contrary to the subsidiary's best interest.  Wrongful means is defined to include misrepresentation of facts, fraud, threats, intimidation, as well as a number of other acts, including any other wrongful act recognized by statute or common law.  The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff.

The full opinion is available in PDF.

Serio v. Baystate Properties, LLC (Ct. of Special Appeals)

Filed: March 8, 2012

Opinion by Retired Judge James A. Kenney, III

Held: Absent a finding of fraud, the circuit court erred by finding defendant personally liable for the debts of the limited liability company solely owned by him.

Facts: The plaintiff, a home builder, entered into a contract with defendant, as managing member of an LLC, to build houses to certain specifications on two lots lots which were owned by the defendant individually. As work progressed, the plaintiff drafted multiple addenda to the Agreement reflecting changes to the work. Each addendum, when first presented by the plaintiff, referenced the defendant individually, but the defendant revised those references and both parties signed the addenda, with the defendant signing as Managing Member of LLC. Both parties executed a waiver of any claims for personal liability under this agreement.

Shortly thereafter, payments to the plaintiff slowed. When the plaintiff contacted the defendant regarding the payments, the defendant assured that the properties would soon be sold. Although both properties had been sold, the buyers subsequently defaulted on a mortgage and the defendant received only a small portion of the sale. According to the plaintiff, none of the proceeds from the sale of the lots were deposited in the defendant's business account. 

The plaintiff sued, and the defendant LLC filed for bankruptcy protection. After a bench trial, the circuit court deemed it necessary to pierce the corporate veil to enforce a paramount equity. Accordingly, it entered a verdict against the individual defendant. The defendant appealed.

Analysis: On appeal, the Court affirmed that "except as otherwise provided [in this title], no member shall be personally liable for the obligations of a limited liability company, whether arising in contract, tort or otherwise, solely by reason of being a member of the limited liability company." The Court noted, however, that the corporate shield may be disregarded under certain circumstances. Specifically, "shareholders generally are not held individually liable for debts or obligations or a corporation except where it is necessary to prevent fraud or enforce a paramount equity." Bart Arconti & Sons, Inc. v. Ames-Ennis, Inc. 275 Md. 295 (1975).

The Court qualified this by stating the standard is so narrowly construed, that no appellate court finds an "equitable interest more important than the state's interest in limited shareholder liability." Residential Warranty v. Bancroft Homes Greenspring Valley, Inc., 126 Md. App. 294 (1999). Further, there is no precedent in the court's history of approving this extraordinary remedy of paramount equity. Even Maryland decisions that recognize alternate grounds for piercing the corporate veil do not do so absent a finding of fraud.

The Court compared this case to Hildreth v. Tidewater, where the trial court found circumstances establishing paramount equity that would warrant disregarding the entity shield based on the fact that defendant was the sole shareholder, personally involved in the transaction at issue, there was evidence of bad faith, the business conducted by the corporation was illegal because it was not registered in Maryland, Maryland law precluded an unregistered foreign corporation from engaging in business in Maryland, and there was evidence of a conscious evasion of responsibility. 378 Md. 724 (2006). The Court of Appeals, however, reversed, holding that those circumstances, individually or in combination did not warrant piercing the corporate veil. Id. at 734.

In discussing one possible ground where a corporate entity will be disregarded, the Court discussed the "alter ego" doctrine, and found it would only apply in exceptional circumstances and with great caution where a plaintiff shows "(1) complete domination, not only of the finances, but of the policy and business practice...(2) such contract was used by the defendant to commit fraud or wrong.. and (3) that such control and breach of duty proximately caused injury or unjust loss." Id. at 735. Further factors include whether the corporation was adequately capitalized, the company's solvency when entering the transaction, the observance of corporate formalities, and evidence that the corporation "has no separate mind, will or existence of its own." Id. at 736. The Court also touched upon the theory of whether the conduct was for the purpose of evading legal obligation, but found that the court's narrow interpretation of this ground did not warrant the defendant being held personally liable. The court found, moreover, the decisions of this Court and the Court of Appeals have made clear that the corporate veil will not be pierced to redress the breach of a contractual obligation in the absence of fraud when the party seeking to pierce the corporate shield has dealt with that corporation in the course of its business on a corporate basis. In sum, Maryland is averse to disregarding the entity shield in a business situation in the absence of fraud. 

Here, the circuit court did not find fraud, but found circumstances that warranted paramount equity. The circuit court viewed the defendant's failure to deposit the funds from the sale of the lots into the defendant's bank account and the fact that the defendant later filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy as evidence of an intent to evade the company's legal obligations to the plaintiff. When reviewing these circumstances, this Court saw a greater parallel to Bart Arconti where the Court refused to pierce the corporate veil and hold a shareholder personally liable for conduct that rendered its corporation all but insolvent and was "clearly designed to cause the corporation to evade a legal obligation." 275 Md. at 305. This Court also refused to pierce the corporate veil in a situation where a shareholder placed corporate funds into his personal account and lied regarding matters affecting public safety. See Bancroft, 126 Md. App. 294.

The Court concluded that the defendant fulfilled the contract with the plaintiff until, as the defendant testified, the collapse of the housing market caused problems. The plaintiff was an established building contractor who understood and agreed that it was doing business with another limited liability company, as reflected in the Agreement, and their continuing court of business. Under those conclusions, the Court found that the circuit court abused its discretion in finding the defendant personally liable for the obligations of the defendant.

The full opinion is available in pdf.

Ramlall v. Mobilepro Corp. (Ct. of Special Appeals)

Filed: October 28, 2011

Opinion by: Judge Albert J. Matricciani, Jr.

Held: A corporate veil may only be pierced to prevent fraud or to enforce a paramount equity. Without precedent from the Court of Appeals, the Court of Special Appeals declines to guess what a paramount equity may be. In addition, a "forward triangular merger," by which an acquiring company secures the benefit of limited liability for a target company's debts, is not fraudulent so as to create grounds for piercing the corporate veil.

Facts: The plaintiff was hired by a company to negotiate a billing dispute among the company and and its telephone service provider. Before the plaintiff could collect his fee, the company that hired him (the "Dissolved Company") merged with another company (the "Surviving Company") and was dissolved. The Surviving Company was wholly owned by a parent (the "Parent"), and had been formed for the purpose of merging with the Dissolved Company.

Neither the Surviving Company nor the Parent paid the plaintiff's fee. The plaintiff sued them both - the Surviving Company as the successor to the Dissolved Company, and the Parent as an entity responsible for the debts of the Surviving Company. The Circuit Court granted the Parent's motion for summary judgment. After a trial of the claim against the Surviving Company, the Court granted a motion for judgment in favor of the Surviving Company on the ground that a transaction disclosure agreement stated the terms by which the plaintiff was to be paid, and the plaintiff was not entitled pursuant to those terms. The plaintiff appealed.

Analysis:
Summary Judgment for the Parent: The plaintiff argued that the Parent exercised sufficient control over the Surviving Company to justify piercing the corporate veil. Referencing the Court of Appeals' decision in Bart Aconti & Sons, Inc. v. Ames-Ennis, Inc., the Court affirmed the black-letter principle that it may pierce the corporate veil only based on proof of fraud or necessity to enforce a paramount equity.

In response to the plaintiff's argument that his claim was a paramount equity, the Court noted that "notwithstanding its hint that enforcing a paramount equity might suffice . . ., the Court of Appeals has not elaborated upon the meaning of this phrase or applied it in any case of which we are aware." Accordingly, "with no precedent approving this extraordinary remedy," the Court declined to pierce the corporate veil on that ground. Regarding alleged fraud, the Court rejected the contention that the merger scheme (a "forward triangular merger") was a fraudulent action.

Judgment for the Surviving Company: The Plaintiff argued that the Dissolved Company owed him money based on the benefit he provided in negotiating its dispute. In addition, if the Dissolved Company owed him money, then after the merger, the obligation to pay became the Surviving Company's obligation.

The Court discussed in detail the case law and statutory law providing that, when there is a merger, "the successor is liable for all the debts and obligations of each non-surviving corporation." Accordingly, any obligation of the Dissolved Company to pay the plaintiff was an obligation of the Surviving Company. The question remained, what was that obligation?

Regarding the obligation, the Court found that both sides presented conflicting evidence concerning the terms of the oral agreement to pay. In addition, there was additional evidence to be adduced during the defendant's case. The Court held that, even though it was a bench trial, it was a mistake for the trial court to rely upon the transaction's disclosure statement as dispositive of the disputed oral agreement. In doing that, the trial court disregarded substantial evidence that the statement was not an accurate representation of the agreement.

Accordingly, the Court vacated the judgment in favor of the Surviving Company and remanded for the trial court to receive all the evidence and determine the terms of the agreement.

The full opinion is available in .pdf.

Allen v. Dackman (Ct. of Appeals)

Filed: March 22, 2010
Opinion by Judge Clayton Greene, Jr.

Held: An individual member of an LLC may be exposed to personal liability if he commits, inspires or participates in a tort. In addition, under the Baltimore Housing Code, an individual member of an LLC that owns a residential property may be subject to personal liability for violations of the Code as an "owner", as the term is defined, if he has "control" over the title, notwithstanding the liability shield of the LLC.

Facts: An LLC acquired a property in Baltimore City in order to sell it and turn a profit. At the time of purchase, the LLC was unaware that prior renters remained on the property. The LLC later became aware of the prior renters and requested that they vacate the premises. The prior renters did not comply and eventually had to be forcibly removed from the premises.

Two young children lived with the prior renters. They suffered elevated blood-lead levels, allegedly caused by lead paint on the premises, both before and after the LLC acquired the property. The plaintiffs filed a complaint against both the LLC and an individual that was a member of the LLC (the “Individual”), alleging a negligence action based on violations of the Baltimore City Housing Code.

The Individual filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that he could not be held personally liable as a matter of law because his only involvement with the property was through the LLC. The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Special Appeals. The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, and the plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Analysis: In a 5-2 decision, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a jury could have found the Individual personally liable. While an LLC member is generally not liable for torts committed by the LLC, the court stated that such a member could be liable if it committed, inspired or participated in the tort. The court held that because the Individual managed the LLC’s day-to-day affairs, a jury could have found that the Individual personally participated in the LLC’s decisions regarding the alleged negligent maintenance of the property. According to the court, such participation would permit personal liability for the Individual.

An additional issue on appeal was whether the Individual could be considered an "owner" under the Housing Code. Compliance with the Housing Code is only the responsibility of owners. The court ultimately held that a jury could have found that the Individual was an owner and so summary judgment was inappropriate. In so holding, the court stated the definition of owner under the Housing Code includes those who "control" title to a dwelling and it was a question for the jury whether the Individual had control, notwithstanding that the LLC owned the title.

The full opinion is available in PDF.

Antonio v. Security Services of America, LLC (Maryland U.S.D.C.)

Filed: March 31, 2010
Opinion by Judge Alexander Williams, Jr.

Held: (1) Parent of a company is not a proper party to suit against its subsidiary in Maryland under the corporate veil piercing doctrine due to the absence of a showing of fraud or a necessity to enforce a paramount equity; (2) Predecessor of a company is not a proper party to suit against its successor where there is no causality between the acts of the predecessor and the individual defendants; (3) Summary judgment granted to Corporate Defendants on breach of contract claim brought against them because Plaintiffs were not third party beneficiaries of the contract between security company and community developer; (4) Corporate Defendants held not liable for the acts of employee who took part in committing crime; (5) Summary judgment granted to Corporate Defendants on Fair Housing Act claim, claim for violation of 42 USC §1982(3), tortious interference with contract claim, and claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED").

Facts: The case arises out of an arson incident on December 6, 2004 where five men conspired to burn mainly minority-owned homes in Hunters Brooke, a neighborhood in Charles County, Maryland. The thirty-two Plaintiffs in this case are individuals who owned or had contracted to purchase homes in Hunters Brooke. The Plaintiffs sued the individual defendants (who have all already been found guilty or pled guilty to felony criminal charges arising from their participation in the arson), and corporate defendants SSA Security, Inc. ("SSA, Inc."), the security guard company, its parent ("ABM"), and its predecessor ("SSA, LLC") (collectively, the "Corporate Defendants") on allegations of violations of the Fair Housing Act, Maryland Fair Housing Law, 42 USC §1982, 42 USC §1985(3), and claims of tortious inference with contract and IIED. Additionally, the Plaintiffs sued the Corporate Defendants for negligence in hiring, training, and supervision, negligence, violations of the Maryland Business Occupations and Professions Code, and breach of contract. The additional counts against the Corporate Defendants arise out of the hiring and employment by SSA, Inc. of two of the individual defendants as security guards to work at Hunters Brooke during the time of the arson.

Analysis: The Court began with a corporate veil piercing analysis to determine whether ABM, the parent corporation of SSA, Inc., was a proper party in the case. Unlike other states where showing a high level of control by the parent over the subsidiary is sufficient, Maryland is more restrictive; the corporate entity will only be disregarded when it is "necessary to prevent fraud or to enforce a paramount equity." In Maryland, the application of a control or instrumentality exception does not apply. The Plaintiffs were successful in showing ABM's control over the operations of SSA, Inc. considering the following: (1) ABM owned 100% of the voting securities in SSA, Inc., (2) SSA, Inc. does not hold annual board meetings, keep corporate minutes, or conduct its own audits, and (3) all but one of SSA, Inc.'s officers are ABM's officers. Therefore, if the case had arisen under another state's laws that accepts the control or instrumentality exception to the corporate veil doctrine, the level of control would be sufficient to justify piercing the corporate veil.

In Maryland, however, liability cannot be attached absent a showing of fraud or necessity to enforce a paramount equity, which does not exist in this case. Plaintiffs argued that ABM is directly liable and therefore there is no need to pierce the corporate veil considering ABM involved itself in the daily operations of its subsidiary, including contracting, training, and rehiring employees. The Court disagreed, and applied the veil piercing doctrine to hold that ABM was not a proper party to the suit because Plaintiffs failed to show or plead fraud or a similar inequity.

The Court also agreed with the Corporate Defendants that SSA, LLC, the predecessor to SSA, Inc. was not a party to the case because it cannot be held directly liable for its hiring and training of the two individual defendants who committed the crimes. SSA, LLC originally hired the two defendants, but the defendants were terminated and forced to reapply for positions with SSA, Inc. The Court held that the facts do not indicate that SSA, LLC was involved with the Hunters Brooke property at the time of the incident and that all potential issues of vicarious liability should be directed at SSA, Inc. In Maryland, a successor may be liable for allegations of misconduct against its predecessor that ripen into findings of liability because a successor is on notice that these allegations exist. However, no such notice could exist for a predecessor to be aware of future bad acts by a successor. The rehiring of the individual defendants by SSA, Inc. breaks any possible chain of causality for SSA, Inc. and it is therefore not a proper party to the suit.

The Court also granted the Corporate Defendants summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. The contract in question is the oral or implied one between the developer of the neighborhood and SSA, Inc. (there was no written contract in place). Plaintiffs argue that they are third parties beneficiaries of that contract. In Maryland, to recover for breach of contract as a third party beneficiary, a person must first demonstrate that the contract was intended for his benefit and it must clearly appear that the parties intended to recognize him as a primary party in interest and as privy to the promise. Without clarity that the contract was intended for the benefit of that person, the person is only an incidental beneficiary who cannot recovery for breach of contract. In this case, the Court held that the primary purpose of the contract was to protect the Hunters Brooke construction site at night from intruders. Even though the Plaintiffs have a vested ownership interest in the homes and therefore had some benefit from that protection, this benefit is not enough considering the developer was the primary beneficiary of the contract between SSA, Inc. and the developer.

The Court further granted partial summary judgment to the Corporate Defendants for alleged violation of Maryland Business Occupations and Professions Code Section 19-501 (licensing of security guard agencies) claim. After reviewing the legislative history and other considerations related to the statute, the Court held that the statute holds employer security guard agencies liable for acts of employees consistent with common law principles of vicarious liability, rather than strict liability for any acts committed by their employees while on duty. To determine whether the Corporate Defendants are liable under the statute, the Court will assess common law rules of vicarious liability by looking to see whether the employees acted within the scope of their employment or that SSA, Inc. ratified their actions.

Lastly, the Court granted summary judgment to the Corporate Defendants for claims under the Fair Housing Act and other civil rights statutes dealing with anti-discrimination (for failure to present evidence that the Corporate Defendants should be held directly or vicariously liable for violating these civil rights statutes), claim for IIED (for failure to find intentional or reckless conduct), and tortious interference with contract (for failure to establish intentional conduct).

The full opinion is available in PDF.