Foster v. Churchill
642 N.Y.S.2d 583, 87 N.Y.2d 744, 665 N.E.2d 153 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant with an economic interest in a business is protected by the defense of economic justification when interfering with a contract, unless their actions are motivated by malice or involve fraudulent or illegal means. Similarly, otherwise defamatory statements made between parties with a common interest are protected by a qualified privilege, which can only be overcome by a showing of malice.
Facts:
- Mark Foster and Don Franco founded Microband Companies Incorporated and later, after selling it, repurchased it in 1985 with substantial financing from a group of venture capital firms, the TA defendants.
- The TA defendants, including Richard Churchill and David Croll, owned a 75% equity interest in Microband and served as directors on its board, while Foster and Franco owned the remaining 25%.
- In 1989, Foster and Franco amended their employment agreements, which provided for significant severance packages if they were terminated for reasons other than cause, death, or disability.
- By the fall of 1989, Microband was in serious financial trouble, had run out of cash, and had failed to meet a subscriber target required for additional financing.
- The board hired outside consultants who concluded that Microband was being mismanaged.
- Prior to a board meeting, directors Churchill and Croll circulated a document titled "Schedule of Actions Constituting Cause," listing six grounds for terminating Foster and Franco.
- The list alleged that Foster and Franco had mismanaged the company, failed to disclose the extent of its financial problems, and were preoccupied with their own employment contracts.
- On November 10, 1989, based on the allegations in the schedule, Microband's board terminated Foster and Franco "for cause."
Procedural Posture:
- Mark Foster and Don Franco sued the TA defendants in the New York Supreme Court (trial court) for tortious interference with their employment contracts and defamation.
- After a nonjury trial, the trial court found that Microband had breached its contracts with the plaintiffs but dismissed all claims against the TA defendants.
- The trial court held that the TA defendants' actions were protected by the defense of economic justification and that the defamatory statements were protected by a qualified privilege.
- Foster and Franco appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the claims.
- The Court of Appeals of New York (the state's highest court) granted Foster and Franco's motion for leave to appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do the defenses of economic justification and qualified privilege protect corporate directors from liability for tortious interference with contract and defamation when they cause the termination of executives to protect the company's financial interests, even if their actions are not in good faith?
Opinions:
Majority - Smith, J.
Yes. The defenses of economic justification and qualified privilege protect corporate directors from liability when their actions are motivated by the corporation's financial interests, even if not in perfect good faith, so long as there is no malice or use of illegal or fraudulent means. For the tortious interference claim, the TA defendants' 75% equity interest gave them a significant economic interest to protect. Their actions to terminate Foster and Franco, aimed at preserving the financial health of the nearly insolvent Microband, were economically justified. To defeat this defense, the plaintiffs needed to show the defendants acted with malice or used illegal means, which they failed to do. A finding that the defendants acted without 'good faith' to save the company money is not equivalent to malice. For the defamation claim, the statements made in the 'Schedule of Actions' were protected by a qualified privilege because they were communications between board members who shared a common interest in Microband's management and financial health. This privilege is only overcome by showing malice, meaning spite, ill will, or a high degree of awareness of the statements' probable falsity. The plaintiffs failed to meet this burden, as the defendants' primary motivation was the company's economic interest, not personal animus.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens the legal protections for corporate directors and majority shareholders when making decisions that lead to a breach of contract, such as terminating executives. It establishes a high bar for plaintiffs in such cases, requiring them to prove not just that the directors' actions were harmful or based on false information, but that they were driven by malice or illegal means. The court's distinction between a 'lack of good faith' (e.g., acting to save a company money) and legal 'malice' clarifies that actions motivated by the company's economic self-interest are likely to be shielded from liability for tortious interference and defamation.
