ACS Investors, Inc. v. McLaughlin
943 S.W.2d 426, 1997 WL 78226 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A third party cannot be held liable for tortious interference with a contract for inducing a party to perform an act that the contract expressly permits. A corporate officer is not individually liable for inducing the corporation's breach of contract unless the officer acted so contrary to the corporation's best interests that their actions could only have been motivated by personal interest.
Facts:
- In July 1986, Thomas McLaughlin and John Lazovich (collectively 'McLaughlin') sold their electronic benefit transfer (EBT) business, AMS II, to First Texas Savings Association ('First Texas').
- The sales contract, known as the McLaughlin Agreement, gave McLaughlin an option to purchase 49% of the business (now the AMS Division) in 1991, which First Texas would then be obligated to buy back for a formula-based price.
- Paragraph 10(b) of the McLaughlin Agreement explicitly allowed First Texas to sell the AMS Division to an outside party before May 31, 1991, after giving McLaughlin notice and an opportunity to bid, which First Texas was not required to accept.
- By 1987, First Texas was insolvent and sought to stem its losses.
- In July 1988, First Texas entered into a Purchase and Contribution (P&C) Agreement with ACS Investors, Inc. and its affiliates (collectively 'ACS') to consolidate several assets, including the AMS Division, into a new subsidiary controlled by ACS.
- Before finalizing the P&C Agreement, ACS identified the McLaughlin Agreement as a potential conflict, and First Texas agreed to indemnify ACS from any liability related to it.
- The transaction resulted in the transfer of the AMS Division's assets to ACS, while the contractual obligations to McLaughlin, including the purchase option, remained with the financially troubled First Texas, effectively severing the option from the asset.
- J. Livingston Kosberg, First Texas's chairman, along with other officers, received stock options in ACS as part of the transaction.
Procedural Posture:
- Thomas McLaughlin and John Lazovich sued ACS Investors, Inc., its affiliates, Darwin Deason, and J. Livingston Kosberg in a Texas trial court for tortious interference with a contract and other claims.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of McLaughlin, finding that each defendant had tortiously interfered with the McLaughlin Agreement.
- The trial court entered a judgment on the jury's verdict, awarding McLaughlin $3 million in actual damages and $1.5 million in exemplary damages.
- ACS and the individual defendants (appellants) appealed the judgment to the Texas Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding there was sufficient evidence to support the tortious interference claim.
- ACS and Kosberg (petitioners) then sought review from the Supreme Court of Texas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a third party commit tortious interference with a contract by inducing a party to enter into a transaction that is expressly contemplated and permitted by the terms of that contract?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Baker
No. A party cannot be held liable for tortious interference by inducing a contract obligor to do what the contract itself gives it the right to do. The court's analysis begins with the plain terms of the contract. Here, Paragraph 10(b) of the McLaughlin Agreement expressly permitted First Texas to sell the AMS Division to an outside buyer like ACS. Because the agreement contemplated a transaction where the purchase option could be severed from the asset, ACS merely induced First Texas to exercise a right it already possessed. Such conduct is not actionable interference as a matter of law. This is not a case requiring the affirmative defense of legal justification, because the claim fails at the initial stage; the contract was not subject to the alleged interference. Furthermore, Kosberg is not individually liable because a corporate officer is immune from liability for such actions unless a plaintiff proves the officer acted in a manner so contrary to the corporation's best interests that the actions could only have been motivated by personal interest. The unanimous approval of the transaction by the First Texas board, despite Kosberg receiving stock options, negates any inference that he acted solely for personal gain.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a critical limitation on the tort of interference with contract by emphasizing contractual-supremacy. It establishes that if the allegedly interfering conduct is expressly permitted by the contract's terms, a tortious interference claim fails as a matter of law, precluding recovery. The ruling prevents parties from using tort law to gain protections they failed to negotiate into their contracts. Additionally, the case reinforces the high standard required to hold a corporate officer personally liable, protecting the business judgment of officers who act in good faith, even if they receive some incidental personal benefit from a corporate transaction.
