Asahi’s Morning Sun – Court Holds Parent And Its Managers May Be Liable For Interfering With Subsidiary’s Contract


Yesterday’s post was intended to set the stage for a discussion of last week’s decision by the Court of Appeal in Asahi Kasei Pharma Corp. v. Actelion Ltd., 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 1017 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. Dec. 18, 2013).  The dispute giving rise to these appeals arose from the termination of an agreement between Asahi Kasei Pharma Corp. and CoTherix, Inc. after the latter corporation had been acquired by Actelion, Ltd.  We left off with the Court of Appeal affirming the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Asahi’s Cartwright Act claims.

Asahi had more success on its claim for intentional interference against the CoTherix, Actelion and three of Actelion’s executive officers.  After a jury trial and various post-trial motions, the trial court entered judgment in favor Asahi for $377,325,000.  The jury also awarded sizable punitive damages against the executives.  It should be no surprise that the defendants appealed.

Corporate Owner May Be A Gershom

The defendants argued that they could not be liable for interfering with the agreement because Actelion had a “legitimate … economic interest in the contractual relationship.”  The basis of this argument is found in the California Supreme Court’s holding in Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd., 7 Cal. 4th 503 (1994) that a contracting party cannot be held liable in tort for conspiracy to interfere with its own contract.  The defendants urged that the Court of Appeal read this language broadly to limit liability to complete “strangers” to a contract.  The Court of Appeal, however, was not persuaded, holding that a “stranger” means one who is neither a party to the contract nor an agent of a party to the contract.

Caveant Managers of Parent Companies

The individual defendants invoked the so-called “manager’s privilege” under which corporate agents and employees of a corporation cannot be held liable for inducing a breach of the corporation’s contract.   The individual defendants faced just one problem, but it was a fatal problem.  They were not managers of the subsidiary corporation.  Thus, the Court of Appeal held that to enjoy the manager’s privilege, a manager must be inducing a breach by his or her company.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Allen Matkins | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Allen Matkins on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.