In Re Ashby Enterprises, Ltd.

47 B.R. 394, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23090
CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedJanuary 28, 1985
Docket84-0343
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 47 B.R. 394 (In Re Ashby Enterprises, Ltd.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Ashby Enterprises, Ltd., 47 B.R. 394, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23090 (D.D.C. 1985).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

HAROLD H. GREENE, District Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia, granting summary judgment to the Washington Star, a creditor which was sued by Ashby Enterprises for tortious interference with contractual relations and economic duress. For the reasons stated below, the order will be affirmed and the appeal will be dismissed.

In the fall of 1981, Jack Luskin formed a corporation, Superstores, Inc., to acquire Ashby Enterprises, which was an appliance retailer. At the time the proposed purchase was to be consummated, Ashby was heavily in debt. Under Mr. Luskin’s directions, Ashby entered into an out-of-court composition agreement with seven of its largest unsecured creditors. Pursuant to this agreement, Ashby agreed to repay its creditors 75% of their respective debts over a two and one-half year period. Implementation of the composition agreement was contingent upon its acceptance by creditors *396 whose accounts comprised 75% of Ashby’s total debt. 1

During this same time, the Star was going out of business, and it had hired Management Cost Accounting Consultants, Inc. (MCA), a collection agency, to liquidate a number of its receivable accounts, including that of Ashby. 2 When MCA contacted Ashby concerning payment of its past due account with the Star, Ashby informed it that it had entered into a composition agreement with most of its other unsecured creditors, and it asked MCA to acquiesce in this agreement. MCA refused, demanding to be paid in full. Bernard Silverman who, according to Ashby, represented the Star in its collection efforts, 3 became abusive when Ashby refused to pay. Specifically, Mr. Silverman allegedly (1) sought to settle the Star’s $30,000 claim for an amount in excess of that provided under the composition agreement and later suggested that some third party purchase the claim; (2) made several threats to file an involuntary chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding against Ashby if payment was not forthcoming; 4 and (3) used profanity.

In order to avoid an involuntary bankruptcy petition, which Ashby believed would harm its credit rating and injure the reputation of Luskin’s, Inc., Ashby itself commenced a voluntary chapter 11 proceeding. In connection with that proceeding, Ashby filed an action against the Star alleging that Silverman’s actions constituted tortious interference with Ashby’s contractual relations with other creditors under the composition agreement and actionable economic duress. Ashby sought actual and punitive damages for injury to its credit standing and the reputation of Ash-by’s officers and directors (persons who were not parties to the complaint), and its legal fees and administrative costs incurred by filing the voluntary chapter 11 petition — costs which Ashby maintains it would not have incurred under the composition agreement. 5

The Star, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against MCA, which had the Ashby account at the time of the alleged threats, claiming that MCA was liable to it for any damages Ashby might recover against the Star. MCA then impleaded Paul Goodman, its former collection attorney. 6 After Ash-by had completed discovery, MCA filed a motion to dismiss Ashby’s amended complaint on the ground that the underlying threatening conduct was not actionable. The Bankruptcy Court agreed and in a bench ruling on July 22, 1983, it granted MCA’s motion for summary judgment. 7 This appeal followed.

*397 Ashby challenges the ruling of the Bankruptcy Court that Ashby failed to state a valid cause of action under either of its two theories of liability.

First. There is no evidence in the record 8 to support Ashby’s claim of tor-tious interference with contractual relations. 9 Neither the Star nor MCA ever contacted Ashby’s other creditors or in any way attempted to deter them from entering into the composition agreement. To be sure, MCA refused to assent to this agreement, and it pressed Ashby to pay its outstanding debt in full even though it knew of the agreement and was told by Ashby that any “under-the-table” payments to nonconsenting creditors would violate its terms. However, it is well settled that a party may lawfully engage in conduct which may interfere with a contract or contractual relations if it “asserts in good faith a legally protected interest of his own or threatens in good faith to protect the interest ... if the actor believes that his interest may otherwise be impaired or destroyed by the performance of the contract or transaction.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 773.

Here, the Star was under no legal obligation to accept the composition agreement, and it was well within its right to demand that its debt be paid in full and to threaten to file a chapter 11 bankruptcy action against Ashby if that payment was not forthcoming. 10 Moreover, Ashby was legally free to pay any non-accepting creditor on terms other than those of the composition agreement — a fact which accepting creditors knew or should have known. 11 Silverman was merely seeking to enforce a prior contract between Ashby and the Star; his attempts to settle the claim 12 and his later threats to resort to legal remedies were not inappropriate means of protecting the rights of the Star. Dresser v. Sunderland Apartments Tenants Ass’n, 465 A.2d 835, 838-39 n. 12 (D.C.App.1983); Hunter Vending Co. v. D.C. Vending Co., 345 *398 A.2d 142, 144 (D.C.App.1975); Deoudes v. G.B. Macke Corp., 153 A.2d 309, 311 (D.C.App.1959). See generally W. Prosser, Law of Torts § 129 p. 931 (4th ed. 1971). See also Grotrian, Helfferich, Schulz v. Steinway & Sons, 365 F.Supp. 707, 720 (S.D.N.Y.1973), modified, 523 F.2d 1331 (2d Cir.1975). The Bankruptcy Court’s award of summary judgment on this claim was therefore entirely proper and will not be disturbed.

Second. Ashby’s claim of economic duress is equally without merit. To begin with, economic duress is generally regarded as a contractual defense; it does not constitute an affirmative cause of action under either contract or tort. 13 Even if it be assumed arguendo

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Young v. 1st American Financial Services
977 F. Supp. 38 (District of Columbia, 1997)
Equity Group, Ltd. v. Painewebber Inc.
839 F. Supp. 930 (District of Columbia, 1993)
In Re Quality Processing, Inc.
9 F.3d 1360 (Eighth Circuit, 1993)
Bennett Enterprises, Inc. v. Domino's Pizza, Inc.
794 F. Supp. 434 (District of Columbia, 1992)
Hisel v. Upchurch
797 F. Supp. 1509 (D. Arizona, 1992)
Conservative Club of Washington v. Finkelstein
738 F. Supp. 6 (District of Columbia, 1990)
International City Management Ass'n Retirement Corp. v. Watkins
726 F. Supp. 1 (District of Columbia, 1989)
INTERN. CITY MGT. ASS'N RET. CORP. v. Watkins
726 F. Supp. 1 (District of Columbia, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
47 B.R. 394, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23090, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ashby-enterprises-ltd-dcd-1985.