Summary
The Tennessee Supreme Court answered a certified question concerning whether a parent corporation's qualified privilege to interfere with a subsidiary's contractual relations applies when the parent owns less than 100% of the subsidiary. The court held that the privilege applies only to wholly owned subsidiaries and does not extend to a parent owning a majority but less than all of the subsidiary. The case arose from an employment contract dispute involving severance pay and alleged tortious interference.
Holdings
- A parent corporation's qualified privilege to interfere with the contractual relations of a subsidiary does not apply when the parent owns less than 100% of the subsidiary.
Questions Presented
- Whether a parent company's qualified privilege to interfere with the contractual relations of a subsidiary applies when the parent owns a majority interest but less than 100% of the subsidiary.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (28)
- Waste Conversion Systems, Inc. v. Greenstone Industries, Inc., 33 S.W.3d 779 (Tenn. 2000)(followed and applied)
- American Medical International, Inc. v. Giurintano, 821 S.W.2d 331, 336 (Tex. Ct. App. 1991)(followed)
- Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752, 771-73 & n.19 (1984)(distinguished)
- Nelms v. Weaver, 681 S.W.2d 547, 549 (Tenn. 1984)(followed)
- Johns v. Caldwell, 601 S.W.2d 37, 41 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980)(followed)
- Nelson v. Martin, 958 S.W.2d 643, 649 (Tenn. 1997)(followed)
- Trau-Med of America, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Co., 71 S.W.3d 691, 701 (Tenn. 2002)(noted)
- Holloway v. Skinner, 898 S.W.2d 793, 797 (Tex. 1995)(followed by analogy)
- Ladd v. Roane Hosiery, Inc., 556 S.W.2d 758, 760 (Tenn. 1977)(followed)
- Swift v. Beaty, 39 Tenn. App. 292, 282 S.W.2d 655, 659 (1955)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 28.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…