ÿWPCµ0 á©"Þš/6Òx7‚žÖyÏá]ܾ· 1ÂyôË[ Ô~õnÀ¦§J­¢?‚,nÄÞÌiû¢²†ø~ÔZfÙKú²2SÂpû¶ºwÍ[c»cZàüV7Ê^ õ¿PÅœ!ˆÔT*ÌH´Ñu×J «_Š sc·ª=Q™Q®C&!³ïêêts•äðH_dŒväÜÔ)ÿŠjJ»Jú…Am×£Ö+2ØÜÖ¥0ý »;Ïtýµy’÷`‘‡„šlŠæÈI]É¡öx‰À?q+ì×Χ•pÞN'®ÜŠÊij=bP(hÀ‘jM•*¥Àì÷¢¿†íÖiÖ¥^œçýñc󅙆iòubckqÚlE*w9÷ ‡Å« áößé°øÐURwpUÚ홎z‘÷$o½û}t²`½Ôœx©Á‹ÜÁ¾7Ksœh†ÀA3CÁi£¼K¡k/Y…qÆ÷˜gy šG+zdÛªQT×rBí£¡šå %§–xǯÍЦÉh×oÇG ¸$nMcÈÝ@;4ßÏg—m‡BfÛÄyí`}¬õõ’Q»•I]—š2cšu±Î˪ ̇æˆËVO[æñ¹–AúËöWRæ~Ö±Þ §÷Èé¸s -Û™äb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ U$N· w 4 z Ò— i x mz 0U‘ Ææ Ƭ Ær Æ8 0éþNç 0æé 0ãÏE² 0à´ 0Ý” 0Úq 0×K 0Ô" 0Cö 0×9 0Ô 0Ñä 0ε 0˃ 0ÈN 0Å 0ÀÛ 0@› 0ÔÛ 0ѯ 0΀ 0ËN 0È 0Åá 0¦! 0½h"b%#U >-#U*k#•#9# 0DÖ%P&Hj'j'j'j'j'j'j'j'j'j'j'j'j'j'j'j'j'j'j'j'j'j'j'j'j'j'j'j'j' 0ë²+²+²+²+ B,, 0¤º, D3^- D-‘- 0K¾-¾- AS .Æ\. 0¤"/ 0DÆ/ A« 0˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»Ul:-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularš‚,- +¦ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ*+ ÿÿ(_26Ô2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5*G+M ÿÿ(_25Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*D+M ÿÿ(_24Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*A+M ÿÿ(_23Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*>+M ÿÿ(_22Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*;+M ÿÿ(_21Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*8+M ÿÿ(_20Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*5+M ÿÿ(_19Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*2+M ÿÿ(_18Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó* ÿÿ(_17Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô€*GM ÿÿ(_16Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*DM ÿÿ(_15Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*AM ÿÿ(_14Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*>M ÿÿ(_13Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*;M ÿÿ(_12Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*8M ÿÿ(_11Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*5M ÿÿ(_10Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(2M ÿÿ&_9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó( ÿÿ&_8Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(GM ÿÿ&_7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(DM ÿÿ&_6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(AM ÿÿ&_5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(>M ÿÿ&_4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(;M ÿÿ&_3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(8M ÿÿ&_2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(5M ÿÿ&_1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó&2M ÿÿ$_Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó- ù-ô\  `&Times New Roman%ä2¼A`‹Arial  /Ý ƒR¥n$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôûUò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€observation€by€Justice€Brennan€in€dissent€is€totally€consistent€with€the€majority€opinion€written€by€ChiefÐ ° ÐJustice€Ô_ÔRenquistÔ_Ô.€€Justice€Brennanððs€dissent€was€based€on€the€decision€to€remand€to€the€court€of€appeals€rather€than€backÐ tÄ Ðto€the€district€court€for€trial.€€Tennessee€embraced€this€reasoning€in€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€215€(Tenn.€1993).(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó FÝ ƒR¥n$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôûUò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMetric€Partners€Growth€Suite€Investors,€L.P.€is€referred€to€as€ð ðÔ_ÔGSIÔ_Ôðð€by€the€defendants€but€is€referred€to€asÐ ° Ðð ðMetricðð€by€the€plaintiffs. >Ý ƒR¥n$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôûUò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€court€observed€in€footnote:Ð ° Ðà8  àà ` àThe€decision€in€òòBoulevard€Associatesóó€indicates€that€the€privilege€can€be€lost€upon€theÐ tÄ Ðshowing€of€malice.€€72€F.3d€at€1037.€€In€Connecticut,€unlike€the€case€in€Tennessee,€malice€is€not€partÐ 8ˆ Ðof€the€element€for€procurement€of€breach€of€contract.€€It€would€not€be€appropriate€in€Tennessee€toÐ üL Ðpermit€the€privilege€to€be€lost€merely€upon€a€showing€of€malice€because€malice€is€part€of€the€generalÐ À Ðcause€of€action€and€must€be€shown€in€all€cases.€€òòÔ_ÔTestermanÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔTragesserÔ_Ôóó,€789€S.W.2d€553,€556„57,Ð „Ô Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989).€€If€the€parent€corporationððs€privilege€were€lost€upon€a€showing€of€malice,€theÐ H ˜ Ðprivilege€would€be€illusory.Ð# \Ð Ð   #Ð33€S.W.3d€779,€784€(Tenn.€2000).(|G2¥n$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Q}»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôûUò»»Ô d(|3I]$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Q}»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3I]$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Q}»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Q}»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼Q}»»»ÔÑ8€ñXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îKlQ}ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Q}»îîKl #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓSeptember€7,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XñX»¼Q}ÔÌò òÔ#†¼Q}»XXñö#ÔKENNETH€E.€NELSON,€òòet€al.óó€v.€METRIC€REALTY,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡XñX»¼Q}Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€97„2189„I€€€€€Irvin€H.€Ô_ÔKilcreaseÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€ChancellorÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„03204„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€September€26,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ԀР¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓPlaintiffs€appeal€the€action€of€the€trial€court€in€converting€a€Ô_ÔT.R.C.P.Ô_Ô€Rule€12.02€motion€of€thoseÐ xÈ  Ðreferred€to€as€ð ðaffiliated€defendantsðð€into€a€Ô_ÔT.R.C.P.Ô_Ô€Rule€56€motion€and€then€granting€it,€€and€inÐ d´ Ðsustaining€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€those€described€as€ð ðadvisor€defendants.ðð€€TheÐ P  Ðaction€against€all€Defendants€asserted€tortious€interference€with€contract.€€Defendants€appeal€the€trialÐ <Œ Ðcourt€action€in€overruling€their€motion€for€summary€judgment€based€upon€the€statute€of€limitations.€Ð (x ÐWe€affirm€the€action€of€the€Chancellor€in€granting€summary€judgment€to€the€ð ðaffiliated€defendantsððÐ d Ðand€in€granting€the€motion€for€summary€judgment€of€the€ð ðadvisor€defendants.ðð€€We€further€hold€thatÐ P Ðthe€statute€of€limitations€had€expired€as€to€all€defendants.€€As€modified,€the€judgment€of€the€trialÐ ì< Ðcourt€is€affirmed.Ð Ø( ÐÓìÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Ð ° ÐAffirmed€as€Modifiedó óÐ œì ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Q}»àXñz#ÔÔ‡XñX.¼Q}ÔWilliam€B.€Cain,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€J.óó€andÐ tÄ ÐòòFrank€G.€Clement,€Jr.,€Sp.€J.óó,€joined.Ð `° ÐÌH.€Buckley€Cole€and€Carol€M.€Joiner,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellants,€Kenneth€E.€NelsonÐ 8!ˆ  Ðand€Nashville€Lodging€Co.Ð $"t! ÐÌGarry€K.€Grooms,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellees,€Metric€Realty,€Metric€Realty€Corp.,Ð ü#L# ÐMetric€Holdings,€Inc.,€Metric€Management,€Inc.,€Ô_ÔGHIÔ_Ô€Associates€II,€L.P.,€Metric€Realty€Services,Ð è$8 $ ÐInc.,€Chris€Ô_ÔKomanowskiÔ_Ô,€Joseph€D.€Long,€Ronald€E.€Ô_ÔZuzackÔ_Ô,€Robert€A.€Ô_ÔFiddamanÔ_Ô,€and€W.€PatrickÐ Ô%$!% ÐÔ_ÔMcDowellÔ_Ô.Ð À&"& ÐÌÓÚ Óò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Q}»XXñ #ÔÔ‡XñX»¼Q}ÔÐ ˜(è#( ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼Q}»XXñá #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XñX»¼Q}Ôà  àThis€case€is€another€chapter€in€the€continuing€saga€of€Kenneth€E.€Nelson,€Nashville€LodgingÐ p*À%* ÐCo.,€Orlando€Residence,€Ltd.,€and€Metric€Partners€Growth€Suite€Investors,€L.P.€(ð ðGSIðð).€€The€factsÐ \+¬&+ Ðprecipitating€this€controversy€are€set€forth€in€òòOrlando€Residence,€Ltd.€v.€Nashville€Lodging€Co.óó,€No.Ð H,˜', Ð01A01„9807„CH„00357A,€slip€op.€at€1„3€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Nov.€17,€1999)€as€follows:Ð 4-„(-ý Ð‡Ó XÓÓ XÓÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÍ Ð °œX?ÓÔ‡/XñXXXñÔà ` àThe€seeds€of€the€present€dispute€were€sown€in€1981€when€Samuel€H.€HardigeÐ ° Ðhired€Kenneth€E.€Nelson€to€oversee€one€of€his€businesses.€€Mr.€Hardige€fired€Mr.Ð œì ÐNelson€a€short€time€later,€thereby€precipitating€considerable€litigation€between€Mr.Ð ˆØ ÐNelson€and€various€business€entities€owned€by€Mr.€Hardige.€€When€the€litigation€wasÐ tÄ Ðeventually€settled,€Nashville€Residence€Corporation€(ð ðNashville€Residenceðð),€ofÐ `° Ðwhich€Mr.€Nelson€was€the€principal€stockholder,€received€a€tract€of€land€at€2300€ElmÐ L œ ÐHill€Pike€in€Nashville.€€In€return,€Nashville€Residence€and€two€sureties€executed€aÐ 8 ˆ Ð$250,000€note€to€Orlando€Residence,€Ltd.€(ð ðOrlando€Residenceðð),€a€limitedÐ $ t Ðpartnership€with€Mr.€Hardige€as€the€general€partner.€€€(Footnote€omitted).€€ThereafterÐ  ` ÐNashville€Lodging€Company€(ð ðNashville€Lodgingðð),€a€Tennessee-based€limitedÐ ü L  Ðpartnership€with€Nashville€Residence€as€its€general€partner,€built€a€Marriott€Hotel€onÐ è 8  Ðthe€Elm€Hill€property.Ð Ô$  ÐÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓE+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ŠXÍ EÓà8  àà ` àNashville€Residence€defaulted€on€the€note€to€Orlando€Residence.€€InÐ ¬ü  ÐDecember€1986,€Orlando€Residence€sued€Nashville€Residence€in€the€United€StatesÐ ˜è  ÐDistrict€Court€for€the€Middle€District€of€Tennessee.€€Shortly€after€Orlando€ResidenceÐ „Ô  Ðfiled€suit,€Nashville€Residence€quitclaimed€the€Elm€Hill€property€to€NashvilleÐ pÀ ÐLodging.€€In€1989,€Nashville€Lodging€sold€the€hotel€and€leased€the€property€to€MetricÐ \¬ ÐPartners€Growth€Suite€Investors,€L.P.€(ð ðMetric€Partnersðð).€€In€March€1990,€OrlandoÐ H˜ ÐResidence€obtained€a€judgment€in€federal€court€against€Nashville€Residence€forÐ 4„ Ð$250,000€plus€interest.Ð pÐ Ð  ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÍ Ð °°ŒX?ÓÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓE+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ŠXÍ EÓà8  àà ` àArmed€with€its€$250,000€judgment,€Orlando€Residence€filed€suit€in€theÐ øH ÐChancery€Court€for€Davidson€County€against€Nashville€Residence,€NashvilleÐ ä4 ÐLodging,€Mr.€Nelson,€and€Metric€Partners€attacking€the€conveyance€of€the€Elm€HillÐ Ð  Ðproperty€as€a€fraudulent€conveyance.€€Orlando€Residence€eventually€succeeded€withÐ ¼  Ðits€claim€and€was€awarded€$501,934€in€compensatory€and€$850,000€in€punitiveÐ ¨ø Ðdamages€from€Nashville€Residence€and€Nashville€Lodging.€€Both€NashvilleÐ ”ä ÐResidence€and€Nashville€Lodging€appealed€to€this€court.ЀÐÐ Ð  ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÍ Ð °°ŒX?ÓÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓE+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ŠXÍ EÓà8  àà ` àOrlando€Residence€decided€to€execute€on€its€chancery€court€judgment€whileÐ X ¨ ÐNashville€Residenceððs€and€Nashville€Lodgingððs€appeal€was€pending.€€In€the€summerÐ D!” Ðof€1996,€Orlando€Residence€moved€to€subject€the€Elm€Hill€property€to€an€executionÐ 0"€  Ðsale.€€Orlando€Residence€purchased€the€property€for€$100,000,€and€this€sale€wasÐ #l! Ðconfirmed€by€the€trial€court.€€Three€months€later,€this€court€reversed€OrlandoÐ $X" ÐResidenceððs€judgment€and€remanded€the€case€for€a€new€trial.€€Ô#†XñXX/Xñ¨#ÔòòÔ‡/XñXXXñÔSee€Orlando€ResidenceÐ ô$D # ÐLtd.€v.€Nashville€Lodging€Co.Ô#†XñXX/Xñz#ÔóóÔ‡/XñXXXñÔ,€No.€01A01-9606-CH-00256,€1996€WL€724915,€atÐ à%0!$ Ð*4-7€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Dec.€18,€1996),€Ô#†XñXX/Xñ #ÔòòÔ‡/XñXXXñÔperm.€app.€denied€concurring€in€results€onlyÔ#†XñXX/Xñ² #ÔóóÔ‡/XñXXXñÔÐ Ì&"% Ð(Tenn.€May€19,€1997).и'#&Ð Ð  ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÍ Ð °°ŒX?ÓÌà ` àWith€the€fraudulent€conveyance€judgment€now€vacated,€Nashville€LodgingÐ )à$( Ðand€Nashville€Residence,€not€surprisingly,€requested€the€trial€court€to€set€aside€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðexecution€sale€of€the€Elm€Hill€property€to€Orlando€Residence.€€They€also€requestedÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€trial€court€to€dismiss€the€case€because€Orlando€Residence€lacked€standing€toÐ ° Ðenforce€the€federal€court€judgment.€€The€trial€court€declined€to€dismiss€OrlandoÐ œì ÐResidenceððs€fraudulent€transfer€suit€or€to€set€aside€the€judicial€sale.€€After€severalÐ ˆØ Ðadditional€skirmishes,€Nashville€Residence€and€Nashville€Lodging€again€appealedÐ tÄ Ðto€this€court.Ð `° ÐÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓE+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ŠXÍ EÓà8  àà ` àNashville€Lodging€also€decided€to€try€another€legal€tack€after€the€trial€courtÐ 8 ˆ Ðdenied€its€motion€to€set€aside€the€judicial€sale.€€It€filed€a€new€action€in€the€ChanceryÐ $ t ÐCourt€for€Davidson€County€claiming€that€Orlando€Residence€was€being€unjustlyÐ  ` Ðenriched€as€a€result€of€its€purchase€of€the€Elm€Hill€property€at€the€judicial€sale.€€ThisÐ ü L  Ðcase€was€assigned€to€the€trial€court€where€Orlando€Residenceððs€fraudulentÐ è 8  Ðconveyance€claim€was€pending.€€Accordingly,€Nashville€Lodging€asserted€that€it€wasÐ Ô$  Ðentitled€to€return€of€the€property€and€to€restitution€of€all€rents€and€profits€received€byÐ À  ÐOrlando€Residence€after€the€execution€sale.€€(Footnote€omitted).€€€Orlando€ResidenceÐ ¬ü  Ðswiftly€moved€to€dismiss€this€lawsuit€on€res€judicata€grounds.€€On€September€8,Ð ˜è  Ð1998,€the€trial€court€dismissed€Nashville€Lodgingððs€complaint.€€Nashville€LodgingÐ „Ô  ÐCompany€perfected€its€second€appeal€to€this€court.ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÍ Ð °°ŒX?ÓÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓE+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ŠXÍ EÓà8  àà ` àThe€dispute€over€the€Elm€Hill€property€took€on€a€new€dimension€prior€to€theÐ H˜ Ðoral€arguments€in€both€appeals.€€Metric€Partners€defaulted€on€a€promissory€note€it€hadÐ 4„ Ðsigned€as€part€of€the€1989€conveyance€of€the€property€and€purchase€of€the€hotel.€Ð  p Ð(Footnote€omitted).€€The€note€was€secured€by€a€first€mortgage€on€both€the€Elm€HillÐ  \ Ðproperty€and€the€hotel.€€Following€the€default,€the€holder€of€the€note€notified€theÐ øH Ðparties€that€it€intended€to€foreclose€on€and€sell€the€Elm€Hill€property€and€the€hotel.€Ð ä4 ÐThe€foreclosure€sale€was€conducted€shortly€after€this€court€heard€oral€argument€in€theÐ Ð  Ðappeal€involving€Orlando€Residenceððs€fraudulent€conveyance€claim.€€WBL€II€RealÐ ¼  ÐEstate€Limited€Partnership€purchased€the€Elm€Hill€property€and€the€hotel€forÐ ¨ø Ð$9,050,000.€€The€trustee€of€the€deed€of€trust€estimated€that€approximately€$500,000Ð ”ä Ðin€excess€proceeds€would€be€distributed€to€the€owner€of€the€Elm€Hill€property€afterÐ €Ð Ðthe€existing€indebtedness€was€satisfied.Ðl¼Ð Ð  ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÍ Ð °°ŒX?ÓÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓE+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ŠXÍ EÓà8  àà ` àThe€foreclosure€sale€ended€any€possibility€that€either€Orlando€Residence,Ð D!” ÐNashville€Lodging,€or€Nashville€Residence€could€recover€possession€of€the€Elm€HillÐ 0"€  Ðproperty.€€Accordingly,€following€oral€argument€in€its€appeal€from€the€trial€courtððsÐ #l! Ðdismissal€of€its€unjust€enrichment€complaint€against€Orlando€Residence,€NashvilleÐ $X" ÐLodging€moved€to€dismiss€its€appeal€from€the€dismissal€of€its€unjust€enrichmentÐ ô$D # Ðclaim.Ðà%0!$Ð Ð  ÐÔ#†XñXX/Xñ#!#ÔÓ  ÓÌòòÓ  ÓOrlando€Residence,€Ltd.€v.€Nashville€Lodging€Co.,€óóNo.€01A01„9807„CH„00357A,€slip€op.€at€1„3Ð ¸'#& Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Nov.€17,€1999).òò€Ð ¤(ô#' Ðâ âÐ )à$( Ðà  àóóOn€the€second€trial€of€the€fraudulent€conveyance€action€on€August€21st€through€August€25th,Ð ° Ð2000,€the€jury€again€found€the€conveyance€from€Nashville€Residence€to€Nashville€Lodging€in€1986Ð œì Ðto€have€been€fraudulent€and€on€appeal,€this€Court€affirmed€the€judgment€holding:Ð ˆØ Ðâ âÌà8  àà ` àThe€evidence€in€the€record€shows€that€estimates€of€the€equity€in€the€hotel€atÐ `° Ðthe€time€of€the€transfer€to€Nashville€Lodging€ran€from€$517,000€to€$4.5€million.€Ð L œ ÐNashville€Residence€did€not€receive€any€consideration€for€the€transfer,€and€after€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðtransfer,€Nashville€Residence€had€no€other€assets€with€which€to€pay€the€$250,000Ð $ t Ðjudgment€held€by€Orlando€Residence.€€We€think€the€jury€easily€could€have€foundÐ  ` Ðevidence€to€satisfy€the€requirements€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€66-3-305.Ðü L Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€evidence€also€showed€that€just€five€days€after€Orlando€ResidenceÐ Ô$  Ðreceived€its€judgment€defendant€Nelson€began€to€transfer€assets€out€of€NashvilleÐ À  ÐResidence€to€a€newly-formed€limited€partnership€composed€of€the€same€individualsÐ ¬ü  Ðinvolved€in€Nashville€Residence.€€The€transfers€were€accomplished€in€secret€andÐ ˜è  Ðwere€marked€with€numerous€other€badges€of€fraud.€€òòÔ‡/XñXXXñÔSee€Ô#†XñXX/Xñì8#ÔóóÔ‡/XñXXXñÔWilliam€H.€Inman,€Ô#†XñXX/Xñ59#ÔòòÔ‡/XñXXXñÔGibsonððsÐ „Ô  ÐSuits€in€ChanceryÔ#†XñXX/XñŒ9#ÔóóÔ‡/XñXXXñÔ,€ðð€447€(7Ô‡/ôûUòX/XñÔÔ#†ôûUòò/ôûU:#ÔÔ‡0ô¯( òòôûUÔÔÎÿ>ŽpÀÔÔ#†0Xz{ X ò0ô¯(.:#ÔÔ#†XñX X0Xz{p:#ÔÔ‡/XñXXXñÔthÔ‡/ôûUòX/XñÔÔ#†ôûUòò/ôûUê:#ÔÔ‡0ô¯( òòôûUÔÔ2pÀ>ŽÔÔ#†0Xz{ X ò0ô¯( ;#ÔÔ#†XñX X0Xz{M;#ÔÔ‡/XñXXXñÔ€ed.€1988).€€We€are€satisfied€that€the€jury€properlyÐ pÀ Ðassessed€the€evidence€that€satisfies€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€66-3-101.Ð\¬Ð Ð  ÐÔ#†XñXX/XñÇ;#ÔÌòòOrlando€Residence,€Ltd.óó,€No.€M2001„00648„COA„R3„CV„filed€May€21,€2002€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€MayÐ 4„ Ð21,€2002).Ð  p ÐÌà  àThe€foregoing€factual€background,€relative€to€the€Nashville€property,€is€essential€to€a€properÐ øH Ðunderstanding€of€the€parallel€litigation€in€California€upon€which€the€case€at€bar€is€predicated.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€disputes€between€Nelson€and€GSI€began€in€the€late€1980ððs€when€GSI€acquired€certainÐ ¼  ÐResidence€Inn€hotels€from€entities€controlled€by€Nelson.€€GSI€acquired€both€the€Residence€Inn€inÐ ¨ø ÐNashville,€Tennessee€and€the€Residence€Inn€in€Ontario,€California.€€For€a€time,€Nelson€continuedÐ ”ä Ðto€provide€management€services€at€these€Residence€Inn€hotels,€including€the€Ontario€hotel€inÐ €Ð ÐCalifornia,€which€was€managed€by€Nelson€from€April€1988€to€February€1991.€€GSI€believed€thatÐ l¼ ÐNelson€breached€his€management€agreement€for€the€Ontario€hotel.€€GSI€gave€notice€of€terminationÐ X ¨ Ðof€the€agreement€and€filed€suit€in€the€superior€court€of€California€in€and€for€the€city€and€county€ofÐ D!” ÐSan€Francisco€in€January€1991,€seeking€damages€and€declaratory€and€injunctive€relief€againstÐ 0"€  ÐNelson.€€A€counter„claim€was€filed€by€Nelson€seeking€damages€and€declaratory€relief.€€JamesÐ #l! ÐReuben,€a€California€attorney,€represented€GSI€in€this€action.€€The€case€at€bar€is€an€attempt€to€holdÐ $X" Ðsubordinate€entities€and€individual€agents€and€employees€of€GSI€personally€responsible€for€theÐ ô$D # Ðactions€of€GSI€in€refusing€to€honor€a€settlement€agreement€reached€between€GSI€and€Nelson€in€theÐ à%0!$ ÐCalifornia€litigation.€€The€basis€for€individual€liability€is€asserted€to€be€intentional€interference€with€Ð Ì&"% Ðcontract.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àAs€the€California€case€approached€its€trial€date,€two€of€the€defendants€in€the€case€at€bar,Ð )à$( ÐJoseph€D.€Long€and€Chris€Komanowski,€wrote€a€memo€to€the€Investment€Advisory€Committee€ofÐ |*Ì%) ÐGSI,€advising:Ð h+¸&* Їà8  àòòLITIGATION€STATUSóóаРР ÐÌà8  àAfter€over€two€years€of€pre„trial€litigation,€the€nelson€case€is€set€for€trial€this€week.€Ð ˆØ Ðalthough€there€are€various€elements€to€this€case,€a€summary€of€the€salient€points€ofÐ tÄ Ðthe€litigation€has€been€outlined€below:Ð`°Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à„à8` Ð Ð àGSI€is€suing€Nelson€for€conversion€as€he€took€$194,000€for€purportedÐ 8 ˆ Ðliquidated€damages€when€his€management€agreement€was€terminated.Ð$ t` x` x ÐÌà  à„à8 ` àNelson€has€filed€a€cross€complaint€alleging€that€under€his€convolutedÐ ü L  Ðinterpretation€of€the€Purchase€and€Sale€Agreement,€he€is€owedÐ è 8  Ðapproximately€$775,000€or€all€of€his€guaranty€back.ÐÔ$ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àIt€is€believed€that€GSIððs€case€is€very€strong€and€it€will€prevail€in€court.€€A€completeÐ ¬ü  Ðvictory€would€entail€judgment€against€all€of€the€Nelson€entities€and€Ken€NelsonÐ ˜è  Ðpersonally€for€the€$194,000€plus€all€legal€fees€and€expenses€which,€after€trial,€willÐ „Ô  Ðtotal€approximately€$250,000.ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àNelson€currently€has€$2.5€million€in€judgments€against€him€personally,€including€aÐ H˜ Ð$1.5€million€judgment€by€the€RTC.€€He€has€indicated€that€he€is€prepared€to€fileÐ 4„ Ðpersonal€bankruptcy€if€we€prevail€and€vigorously€pursue€collection.€€Given€what€hasÐ  p Ðbeen€learned€about€Nelson€during€the€case,€this€would€seem€like€a€logical€move€forÐ  \ Ðhim.€€If€that€occurred,€we€would€stand€in€line€as€an€unsecured€creditor€and€hope€toÐ øH Ðsomeday€collect€something€on€the€judgment.€€There€is€no€way€of€determining€if€andÐ ä4 Ðwhen€we€could€collect.€€The€judgments€were€entered€against€Nelson€in€DecemberÐ Ð  Ð1991.€€We€were€just€informed€of€them€last€week.€€Why€Nelson€did€not€tell€us€soonerÐ ¼  Ðis€a€mystery€as€the€mere€existence€of€these€judgments€would€give€GSI€greaterÐ ¨ø Ðmotivation€to€settle.€€The€only€explanation€is€that€Nelson€acts€irrationally.€€While€weÐ ”ä Ðalways€knew€that€collection€would€be€difficult,€this€information€further€inhibitsÐ €Ð Ðcollection€prospects€upon€obtaining€a€favorable€judgment.Ðl¼Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àòòSETTLEMENT€PROPOSALóóÐD!”Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àVarious€settlement€proposals€have€been€discussed€over€the€past€year€with€the€endÐ #l! Ðresult€that€Nelson€is€unwilling€(and€by€his€account,€unable)€to€pay€òòanyóó€moneyÐ $X" Ðcurrently€in€order€to€settle€this€litigation.€€It€is€believed€that€òòallóó€possible€structuresÐ ô$D # Ðhave€been€explored.€€However,€the€only€asset€which€Nelson€has€which€appears€toÐ à%0!$ Ðhave€any€value€is€his€land€lease€on€GSIððs€Nashville€Residence€Inn.€€We€had€exploredÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€possibility€of€offsets€against€a€settlement€amount€with€monies€paid€to€him€underÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€lease€but€Nelson€was€not€able€to€execute€such€a€proposal€due€to€partnershipÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdisputes€in€that€entity.€€Nelson€believes,€however,€that€he€can€obtain€approval€to€sellÐ )à$( Ðthe€land€for€$1.7€million€and€provide€100%€financing€at€less€than€6%,€a€substantialÐ |*Ì%) Ðdiscount€from€the€current€and€projected€future€Option€Price€and€it€is€this€that€formsÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€basis€of€the€settlement€proposal.€€Below€I€will€outline€the€terms€of€the€currentÐ ° Ðlease€and€the€proposed€changes.€€The€attached€analysis€provides€an€assessment€of€theÐ œì Ðfinancial€impact€of€this€proposal.ЈØÐ Ð  ÐÌòòÓ  Ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Lease€Terms€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð `° ÐÌÓ”TÓà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àCurrentà  àà p àà È àProposedóóÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌà8  àComparable€Cash€PaymentsÐ `Ð Ð  Ðà  à(over€5€years)à0 ¸ àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#à$119,000/yr.à0h(#h(#àà0p(#(#àà0Èp(#p(#à$100,000/yr.Ðü L È(#È(# ÐÌà  àDeferred€Rent€PaymentsÐ Ô$  Ðà  à(5€years)€plus€interestà0  àà0h(#(#à$371,890à0h(#h(#àà0p(#(#àà0Èp(#p(#à$0ÐÀ È(#È(# ÐÌà  àExtension€Optionà0  àà0h(#(#àFloating€rates€x€then€currentà0Èh(#h(#àSame€floating€rate€xИè È(#È(# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àoption€price€($3.6M)€lessà0 È à$1.7M€for€5€yearsÐ„Ô È(#È(# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h à$100,000€for€five€(5)€yearÐ pÀ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àtermsÐ \¬ ÐÌà  àExtension€PaymentÐ 4„ Ðà  à(todayððs€rates)à0 ¸ àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#à$131,000à0h(#h(#àà0p(#(#àà0Èp(#p(#à$112,000Ð pÈ(#È(# ÐÌà  àOption€Price€(in€1998)à0 h à$3.6€millionà0h(#h(#àà0p(#(#àà0Èp(#p(#à$1.7€millionÐøHÈ(#È(# ÐÌà8  àThe€ground€lease€option€price€bears€no€resemblance€to€the€land€value€itself€(in€realityÐ Ð  Ðit€is€a€second€mortgage€with€a€kicker€and€was€structured€as€a€ground€lease€solely€forÐ ¼  ÐNelsonððs€tax€benefit)€and€thus€the€escalating€feature€will€likely€exceed€NOI€growth,Ð ¨ø Ðthereby€minimizing€the€prospects€for€a€buyout€and€refinance€in€1998.€€Additionally,Ð ”ä Ðthe€lease€goes€to€great€pain€to€spell€out€emphatically€that€Nelson€has€the€unfetteredÐ €Ð Ðright€to€approve€or€reject€an€assignment€of€the€lease,€on€sale€or€at€any€other€time.€Ð l¼ ÐThis€was€due€to€the€fact€that,€as€stated€above,€the€deal€was€in€practical€terms€a€secondÐ X ¨ Ðmortgage€rather€than€a€traditional€ground€lease.€€Thus,€Nelson€would€likely€inhibitÐ D!” Ðany€sale€subject€to€the€ground€lease,€thereby€forcing€a€buyout.Ð0"€ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àIt€is€believed€that€under€the€current€lease€structure,€it€will€be€difficult€to€buy€out€theÐ $X" Ðland€and/or€refinance€the€existing€first€mortgage€due€largely€to€the€fact€that€thisÐ ô$D # Ðproperty€was€85%€leveraged€at€the€time€of€acquisition€in€1989.€€In€addition,€the€landÐ à%0!$ Ðlease€option€price€escalator€makes€a€land€buyout€seemingly€unattainable€in€todayððsÐ Ì&"% Ðmarketplace.€€This€proposed€transaction€substantially€improves€the€prospects€for€theÐ ¸'#& Ðsuccessful€outcome€of€the€Nashville€investment.Ф(ô#'Ð Ð  ÐÌÌÐ h+¸&* Ðà8  àòòLITIGATE€vs.€SETTLEMENT€ANALYSISóóаРР ÐÌà8  àBelow€is€an€outline€of€the€range€of€likely€outcomes€under€either€scenario€(litigate€orÐ ˆØ Ðsettlement):ÐtÄÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àòòLitigateóóÐ L œ ÐÌà8  à1.à0` Ð Ð àSuccessful€judgment€for€approximately€$450,000€which€gets€fully€collected.Ð$ t` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  à2.à0` Ð Ð àSuccessful€judgment€for€approximately€$450,000€which€gets€mired€in€aÐ  ` ÐNelson€bankruptcy€and€little,€if€any,€gets€collected€and€GSI€spends€dollars€inÐ ü L  Ðcollection€efforts.Ðè 8 ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  à3.à0` Ð Ð àSuccessful€judgment€for€less€than€full€amount€with€outcomes€#1€or€#2Ð À  Ðapplying.Ьü ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  à4.à0` Ð Ð àNelson€prevails€in€cross€complaint€and€GSI€has€a€substantial€($775,000)Ð „Ô  Ðliability.ÐpÀ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  à5.à0` Ð Ð àIn€all€of€the€above,€additional€litigation€costs€are€approximately€$40,000.ÐH˜` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà  àòòSettlementóóÐ  p ÐÌà8  à1.à0` Ð Ð àNashville€property€performs€exceptionally€well€so€that€a€refinance€of€the€nowÐ øH Ðcurrent€lease€option€price€would€be€achievable.€€GSI€has€windfall€of€$1.9Ð ä4 Ðmillion,€the€difference€between€the€current€1998€option€price€and€theÐ Ð  Ðnegotiated€amount.м ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  à2.à0` Ð Ð àNashville€performance€is€less€than€what€would€be€necessary€to€refinance€andÐ ”ä Ðbuy€out€the€land€in€1998€under€the€current€lease€terms€but€the€proposedÐ €Ð Ðstructure€enables€a€deal€to€take€place€versus€potentially€losing€the€property.Ðl¼` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  à3.à0` Ð Ð àNashvilleððs€performance€goes€down€from€todayððs€income€levels€by€1998€andÐ D!” ÐGSI€ultimately€cannot€refinance€even€the€first€mortgage,€let€alone€buy€out€theÐ 0"€  Ðland€and€loses€the€property.€€This€would€mean€the€settlement€was€ultimatelyÐ #l! Ðunfavorable€to€GSI.Ð$X"` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  àIn€addition€to€the€above€analysis,€it€is€important€to€note€that€the€extinguishing€of€theÐ à%0!$ Ðcurrent€lease€has€many€advantages€on€its€own.€€This€lease€is€extremely€complicated,Ð Ì&"% Ðis€tied€to€the€first€mortgage€and€contains€provisions€which€are€substantiallyÐ ¸'#& Ðambiguous€and€leading€to€the€specific€performance€language€relative€to€the€OptionÐ ¤(ô#' ÐPrice€buyout€which€could€be€construed€as€meaning€that€Nelson€can€force€GSI€toÐ )à$( Ðâ âpurchase€the€land€at€a€specified€(and€inflated)€price.€€Although€I€am€certain€that€thisÐ |*Ì%) Ðwas€not€the€intent,€Nelsonððs€track€record€would€indicate€that€this€sort€of€ambiguityÐ ° Ðis€an€invitation€for€further€litigation.МìÐ Ð  Ðâ âÌà8  àòòCONCLUSION€AND€RECOMMENDATIONóóÐtÄÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àDue€to€the€complicated€nature€of€the€Ontario€litigation,€Nelsonððs€poor€financialÐ L œ Ðcondition,€and€the€difficulty€envisioned€in€collection€if€GSI€prevails,€it€is€believedÐ 8 ˆ Ðthat€a€negotiated€settlement€is€a€prudent€approach.€€Because€we€are€already€engagedÐ $ t Ðwith€Nelson€in€the€Nashville€property,€approaching€a€settlement€with€that€in€mind€isÐ  ` Ðmost€sensible€both€in€terms€of€ultimate€collection,€as€well€as€for€the€purpose€ofÐ ü L  Ðminimizing€further€business€dealings€with€him.€€It€is€believed€that€substantial€valueÐ è 8  Ðis€being€created€in€Nashville,€possibly€far€in€excess€of€the€scope€of€the€currentÐ Ô$  Ðlitigation,€if€the€economy€grows€even€at€modest€rates.€€Thus,€it€is€recommended€thatÐ À  Ðthe€above€described€settlement€proposal€is€approved€and€that€litigation€is€postponed,Ð ¬ü  Ðpending€the€successful€documentation€of€this€agreement.€€If€documentation€cannot,Ð ˜è  Ðfor€any€reason,€be€achieved,€it€is€recommended€that€GSI€continue€to€pursue€NelsonÐ „Ô  Ðthrough€litigation.ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àSubstantially€accepting€the€Long„Komanowski€Memorandum€of€March€23,€1993,€GSI€€andÐ H˜ ÐKenneth€Nelson€entered€into€an€open€court€settlement€agreement€before€Honorable€William€J.€Cahill,Ð 4„ ÐJudge€of€the€San€Francisco€Superior€Court€on€March€23,€1993.€€As€a€part€of€this€in„court€agreement,Ð  p ÐGSI€agreed€that€the€purchase€of€the€land€under€the€Nashville€Marriott€Residence€Inn€would€be€ð ðasÐ  \ Ðis.ððÐ øH ÐÌà  àThe€jolt€to€GSI€came€two€weeks€after€the€in„court€settlement€had€been€agreed€to€whenÐ Ð  ÐNashville€Attorney€Alan€T.€Fister€addressed€the€following€communication€to€Ms.€Joyce€S.€Jaber,Ð ¼  ÐVice€President€and€Corporate€Counsel€of€Metric€Realty€in€San€Mateo,€California:Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àDear€Joyce:ЀÐÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àAt€your€request€and€the€request€of€James€A.€Reuben,€I€have€reviewed€aÐ X ¨ ÐMemorandum€prepared€by€Mr.€Reuben€dated€March€25,€1993,€concerning€an€outlineÐ D!” Ðof€major€points€of€the€settlement€of€a€case€involving€Ken€Nelson,€pending€in€the€SanÐ 0"€  ÐFrancisco€Superior€Court,€before€the€Honorable€William€J.€Cahill.€€The€coreÐ #l! Ðprovision€of€this€settlement€appears€to€be€a€conveyance€of€the€fee€of€the€NashvilleÐ $X" ÐResidence€Inn€from€Nashville€Lodging€Company€to€Metric€Partners.€€€Naturally,Ð ô$D # Ðupon€the€conveyance€of€the€fee,€the€current€long„term€ground€lease€would€be€mergedÐ à%0!$ Ðinto€Metric€Partnersðð€title.ÐÌ&"%Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àThis€contemplated€conveyance€to€Metric€Partners€(hereinafter€referred€to€asÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€ð ð1993€Conveyanceðð)€is€fraught€with€significant€risk€to€Metric€Partners,€and€IÐ )à$( Ðwould€recommend€òòagainstóó€this€transaction.€€As€you€know,€there€is€currently€aÐ |*Ì%) Ðfraudulent€conveyance€action€pending€in€the€Chancery€Court€for€Davidson€County,Ð h+¸&* Ðwherein€Plaintiff€(hereinafter€referred€to€ð ðHardageðð)€alleges€that€there€are€twoÐ ° Ðfraudulent€conveyances€in€the€chain€of€title€to€the€Nashville€Residence€Inn.€Ð œì ÐSpecifically,€the€first€alleged€fraudulent€conveyance€is€a€[sic]€unrecorded€quitclaimÐ ˆØ Ðdeed€dated€December€22,€1986,€whereby€title€to€the€Inn€was€transferred€from€300Ð tÄ ÐElm€Hill€Pike,€Inc.€(formerly€Nashville€Residence€Corporation)€to€Nashville€LodgingÐ `° ÐCompany,€a€Wisconsin€Limited€Partnership.€€Both€of€these€entities€are€Nelson„Ð L œ Ðcontrolled€entities.€€Hardage€also€alleges€that€the€conveyances€to€Metric€Partners€inÐ 8 ˆ ÐMay€1989€are€fraudulent€conveyances.Ð$ tÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àWe€have€filed€a€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment,€which€we€believe€willÐ ü L  Ðabsolve€Metric€Partners€of€any€liability€in€the€action€pending€in€Davidson€County,Ð è 8  ÐTennessee.€€The€essence€of€our€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment€is€that€the€òòMay€1989Ð Ô$  ÐConveyanceóó€to€Metric€Partners€cannot€as€a€matter€of€law€be€deemed€ð ðfraudulent.ðð€Ð À  ÐHowever,€while€Metric€Partners€may€be€absolved€of€liability,€the€fate€of€the€Co„Ð ¬ü  ÐDefendants€is€uncertain.Иè Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àIt€is€our€position€that€given€the€current€circumstances,€as€long€as€we€can€proveÐ pÀ Ðthe€1989€Conveyance€was€not€ð ðfraudulent,ðð€we€will€not€be€adversely€affected€evenÐ \¬ Ðif€the€Court€were€to€find€that€the€1986€Conveyance€among€the€Nelson€entities€wasÐ H˜ Ðð ðfraudulent.ðð€€Our€argument€is€that€even€if€the€1986€Conveyance€is€rescinded,€theÐ 4„ Ðonly€impact€this€would€have€upon€Metric€Partners€is€to€substitute€one€Nelson€entityÐ  p Ðfor€another€as€ð ðLandlord.ðð€€Thus,€all€of€our€rights€and€remedies€pursuant€to€theÐ  \ Ðground€lease€would€still€be€in€full€force€and€effect,€and€we€would€only€be€paying€rentÐ øH Ðto€a€different€entity.€€Even€if€Hardage€ultimately€foreclosed,€we€believe€our€leaseÐ ä4 Ðwould€still€be€valid,€and€we€would€pay€rent€to€Hardage.ÐÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àOur€position€is€greatly€buttressed€by€the€fact€that€we€are€a€ð ðbona€fideÐ ¨ø Ðpurchaserðð€without€knowledge€of€the€obligations€between€the€Nelson€and€HardageÐ ”ä Ðentities€at€the€time€of€the€1989€Conveyance.€€Furthermore,€our€Affidavits€clearlyÐ €Ð Ðindicate€that€we€had€no€suspicion€of€any€fraudulent€intent€on€the€part€of€Nelson€whenÐ l¼ Ðwe€acquired€title€in€1989,€and€that€we€were€not€acting€in€concert€with€Nelson€toÐ X ¨ Ðhinder,€delay€or€defraud€his€creditors.ÐD!”Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àIf€the€1993€Conveyance€occurs,€then€we€certainly€cannot€raise€the€argumentÐ #l! Ðregarding€said€conveyance€that€we€were€a€ð ðbona€fide€purchaserðð€without€notice€of€theÐ $X" Ðdisputes€between€Nelson€and€Hardage.€€Furthermore,€I€am€almost€certain€the€PlaintiffÐ ô$D # Ðwould€argue€that€we€were€now€conspiring€with€Nelson€in€order€to€delay,€defraud€andÐ à%0!$ Ðhinder€the€creditors€of€Mr.€Nelson€and€his€entities.€€If€the€Judge€finds€that€the€1986Ð Ì&"% Ðdeed€was€a€fraudulent€conveyance,€then€he€could€also€find€the€1993€Conveyance€toÐ ¸'#& Ðbe€ð ðfraudulent.ðð€€If€so,€we€would€loose€[sic]€title€to€the€premises.€€Furthermore,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðbecause€our€lease€would€have€been€merged€into€the€1993€deed,€we€would€lose€theÐ )à$( Ðbenefit€of€the€long„term€ground€lease.€€€Ð|*Ì%)Ð Ð  ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà8  àà ` àIn€sum,€without€the€1993€Conveyance,€we€believe€a€ð ðworst€caseðð€scenarioÐ ° Ðwould€merely€substitute€one€Landlord€for€another€concerning€the€long„term€groundÐ œì Ðlease.€€On€the€other€hand,€the€worst€case€scenario€with€the€1993€Conveyance€couldÐ ˆØ Ðresult€in€Metric€Partners€losing€both€the€fee€and€the€ground€lease.€€Furthermore,€IÐ tÄ Ðseriously€doubt€that€you€could€get€title€insurance€to€cover€the€1993€Conveyance.Ð`°Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àIf€you€have€any€questions€concerning€these€matters,€please€do€not€hesitate€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðcontact€me.Ð$ tÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àThus,€caught€between€a€rock€and€a€hard€place,€Long,€Komanowski,€and€the€other€defendantsÐ ü L  Ðat€bar,€who€had€unanimously€recommended€that€GSI€accept€the€California€settlement,€reversedÐ è 8  Ðcourse€upon€consideration€of€the€Fister€Memorandum€and€advised€GSI,€not€to€consummate€theÐ Ô$  Ðsettlement.Ð À  ÐÌà  àLest€there€be€confusion€concerning€the€nine€separate€cases€pending€or€resolved€in€variousÐ ˜è  Ðjurisdictions€throughout€the€country,€between€and€among€Nelson,€GSI,€and€Orlando€Residence,€Ltd.,Ð „Ô  Ðit€is€well€to€observe€that€the€issues€in€this€case€are€very€limited.€€This€is€a€suit€by€Kenneth€NelsonÐ pÀ Ðagainst€individual€officers€and€corporate€advisors€working€for€GSI€or€entities€which€were€generalÐ \¬ Ðpartners€at€GSI.€€It€is€an€attempt€to€hold€these€individuals€and€subordinate€entities€liable€for€theÐ H˜ Ðbreach€of€the€California€settlement€agreement€by€GSI.€€It€has€nothing€to€do€with€the€liability€of€GSIÐ 4„ Ðitself€to€Nelson€for€the€breach€of€the€California€settlement€agreement.€€In€this€case,€Nelson€mustÐ  p Ðstand€or€fall€on€his€ability€to€prove€tortious€interference€by€these€corporate€agents€or€employees€ofÐ  \ Ðthe€corporate€entity€GSI€in€the€face€of€the€their€claim€of€privilege.€€Ð øH ÐÌòòÓ  ÓIDENTITY€AND€STATUS€OF€THE€DEFENDANTSóóà @p àòòÐ Ð  ÐÌÓq’Óà  àóóMetric€Partners€Growth€Suite€Investors,€L.P.€(referred€to€in€the€complaint€as€Metric€Partners;Ð ¨ø Ðreferred€to€by€the€defendants€as€ð ðÔ_ÔGSIÔ_Ôðð,€and€referred€to€by€the€plaintiffs€in€response€to€interrogatoriesÐ ”ä Ðas€ð ðMetricðð)€is€not€a€party€to€this€action€since€it€is€a€California€Limited€Partnership€which€is€assertedÐ €Ð Ðby€Plaintiffs€to€be€the€breaching€party.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àDefendant,€Metric€Realty,€is€an€Illinois€general€partnership€with€principle€offices€in€SanÐ D!” ÐFrancisco,€California€and€is€the€general€partner€of€Metric€Partners€Growth€Suite€Investors,€L.P.€€ItÐ 0"€  Ðis€also€general€partner€of€Defendant,€Ô_ÔGHIÔ_Ô€Associates€II,€L.P.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àDefendant,€Metric€Realty€Corporation,€is€a€Delaware€corporation€with€principle€offices€inÐ ô$D # ÐCalifornia€and€served€as€managing€general€partner€of€Metric€Realty.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àDefendant,€Metric€Holdings,€Inc.,€is€a€Delaware€corporation€with€principle€offices€inÐ ¸'#& ÐCalifornia€and€is€a€general€partner€of€Metric€Realty.Ð ¤(ô#' Ðâ âÐ )à$( Ðà  àDefendant,€Metric€Realty€Services,€Inc.,€is€a€Delaware€corporation€with€principle€offices€inÐ ° ÐCalifornia€and€in€1993€provided€management€services€to€Metric€Partners€Growth€Suite€Investors,Ð œì ÐL.P.Ð ˆØ Ðâ âÌà  àDefendant,€Metric€Management,€Inc.,€is€a€Delaware€corporation€with€principle€offices€inÐ `° ÐCalifornia€and€in€1993€provided€management€services€to€Metric€Partners€Growth€Suite€Investors,Ð L œ ÐL.P.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àAll€of€these€defendants€are€referred€to€as€the€ð ðaffiliated€defendantsðð€in€the€complaint€and€areÐ  ` Ðall€partnerships€or€corporations€which€were€directly€or€indirectly€general€partners€at€Metric€PartnersÐ ü L  ÐGrowth€Suite€Investors,€L.P.€€The€defendant,€Metric€Management,€Inc.,€is€a€Delaware€corporationÐ è 8  Ðwhich€had€no€function€with€respect€to€the€California€property€or€the€Nashville€property€but€was€anÐ Ô$  Ðaffiliate€of€Metric€Partners€Growth€Suite€Investors,€L.P.€and€was€the€employer€of€the€individualÐ À  Ðdefendants,€Long,€Ô_ÔKomanowskiÔ_Ô,€and€Ô_ÔZuzackÔ_Ô.€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àThe€five€individual€defendants,€Chris€Ô_ÔKomanowskiÔ_Ô,€Joseph€D.€Long,€Ronald€E.€Ô_ÔZuzackÔ_Ô,Ð „Ô  ÐRobert€A.€Ô_ÔFiddamanÔ_Ô,€and€W.€Patrick€Ô_ÔMcDowellÔ_Ô€are€referred€to€as€ð ðadvisor€defendantsðð€and€wereÐ pÀ Ðagents€or€employees€of€one€or€more€of€the€ð ðaffiliated€defendants.ððÐ \¬ ÐÌà  àIn€his€final€order,€the€Chancellor€held:€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà8  àà ` àPlaintiffs€in€this€case€allege€that€Defendants€are€liable€in€tort€for€allegedlyÐ  \ Ðinterfering€with,€and€conspiring€to€interfere€with,€a€contract€between€Plaintiffs€andÐ øH ÐMetric€Partners€Growth€Suite€Investors,€L.P.€(ððGSIðð).Ðä4Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àBased€upon€the€pleadings,€affidavits,€briefs,€argument€of€counsel,€and€theÐ ¼  Ðentire€record€in€this€cause,€the€court€finds€as€follows:ШøÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  à1.à ` àAlthough€the€parties€disagree€as€to€the€applicable€choice€of€law,€the€courtÐ €Ð Ðfinds€that€no€significant€differences€exist€between€the€law€of€Tennessee€andÐ l¼ ÐCalifornia€concerning€the€matters€relevant€to€the€pending€motions,€and€that€the€courtÐ X ¨ Ðneed€[not]€resolve€this€dispute€to€decide€the€pending€motions.ÐD!”Ð Ð  Ðà8  à2.à ` àThe€Court€finds€that€no€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€are€in€dispute€and€thatÐ 0"€  Ðthe€facts€establish€that€the€defendants€were€each€employed€by€or€acted€on€behalf€ofÐ #l! ÐMetric€Realty,€the€general€partner€of€GSI,€the€contracting€party.€€The€defendants€wereÐ $X" Ðnot€strangers€to€the€contract,€and€did€not€act€in€such€a€way€as€to€be€treated€asÐ ô$D # Ðstrangers€to€the€contract.€€Accordingly,€Plaintiffs€claim€that€the€defendants€tortiouslyÐ à%0!$ Ðinterfered€with€or€conspired€to€interfere€with€the€contract€between€Plaintiffs€and€GSIÐ Ì&"% Ðmust€be€dismissed.и'#&Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àIt€is€accordingly€ordered,€adjudged€and€decreed€that€the€motion€of€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdefendants,€Metric€Management,€Inc.,€Chris€Komanowski,€Joseph€D.€Long,€RonaldÐ )à$( ÐE.€Ô_ÔZuzackÔ_Ô,€Robert€A.€Fiddaman,€and€W.€Patrick€McDowell€is€granted.Ð|*Ì%)Ð Ð  ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà8  àà ` à.€.€.€.аРР ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€Court€having€previously€dismissed€the€claims€against€the€remainingÐ ˆØ Ðdefendants,€this€action€is€dismissed€in€its€entirety.€€Court€costs€shall€be€taxed€to€theÐ tÄ Ðplaintiffs,€for€which€execution€may€issue,€if€necessary.Ð`°Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àAppellate€court€review€of€summary€judgment€involves€purely€a€question€of€law€and€noÐ 8 ˆ Ðpresumption€of€correctness€attaches€to€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.€€òòCarvell€v.€Bottomsóó,€900€S.W.2dÐ $ t Ð23€(Tenn.€1995).€€In€reviewing€summary€judgment,€all€facts€and€inferences€to€be€drawn€from€suchÐ  ` Ðfacts€must€be€construed€in€favor€of€the€non„moving€party€and€summary€judgment€may€be€grantedÐ ü L  Ðonly€when€there€is€no€disputed€material€fact€creating€a€genuine€issue€for€trial.€€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847Ð è 8  ÐS.W.2d€208€(Tenn.€1993).Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àThe€Chancellor€correctly€sustained€the€defendantsðð€motions€for€summary€judgment€in€thisÐ ¬ü  Ðcase.€€Given€the€contents€of€the€Fister€Memorandum,€the€total€lack€of€proof€offered€by€the€plaintiffsÐ ˜è  Ðof€personal€motivation€or€use€of€wrongful€means€by€the€defendants€in€causing€the€breach€by€GSI€ofÐ „Ô  Ðthe€settlement€agreement,€and€the€controlling€law€pronounced€by€òòForrester€v.€Stockstillóó,€869€S.W.2dÐ pÀ Ð328€(Tenn.€1994);€òòWaste€Conversion€Systems,€Inc.€v.€Greenstone€Industries,€Inc.óó,€33€S.W.3d€779Ð \¬ Ð(Tenn.€2000),€and€òòTrau„Med€of€America,€Inc.€v.€Allstate€Insurance€Companyóó,€No.€W1999„1524„SC„Ð H˜ ÐR11„CV,€2002€WL€451826€(Tenn.€Mar.€25,€2002),€there€is€no€issue€for€trial.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àPlaintiffs€assert€that€privilege€of€a€corporate€agent€or€employee€against€an€interference€ofÐ  \ Ðcontract€claim€is€an€affirmative€defense.€€We€disagree.€€We€see€no€difference€between€the€burden€ofÐ øH Ðproof€requirements€in€this€case€and€the€burden€of€proof€requirements€in€òòWaste€Conversion€Systems,Ð ä4 ÐInc.€v.€Greenstone€Industries,€Inc.óó,€33€S.W.3d€779€(Tenn.€2000).€€€That€case€involved€interferenceÐ Ð  Ðby€the€parent€corporation€with€the€contracts€of€a€wholly€owned€subsidiary.€€On€principle,€there€is€noÐ ¼  Ðdistinction€between€òòWaste€Conversion€Systems,€Inc.€óóand€the€case€at€bar.€€Said€the€supreme€court:Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àà ` àIn€the€case€before€us,€the€plaintiff,€WCS,€is€the€party€attempting€to€recoverÐ €Ð Ðfrom€a€parent€corporation€that€was€not€a€participant€in€the€contract.€€The€plaintiff€isÐ l¼ Ðthe€party€affirming€the€facts€regarding€the€parentððs€interference€with€the€contract€asÐ X ¨ Ðwell€as€its€unlawfulness€in€doing€so.€€Therefore,€once€it€is€established€that€theÐ D!” Ðsubsidiary€is€wholly„owned€by€the€defendant€parent€corporation€(either€as€concededÐ 0"€  Ðin€the€plaintiffððs€complaint€or€as€demonstrated€by€the€defendant),€the€plaintiff€shouldÐ #l! Ðbear€the€burden€of€proof€to€show€that€the€parent€acted€detrimentally€to€theÐ $X" Ðsubsidiaryððs€economic€interests.€€This€fact€should€be€demonstrated€by€the€plaintiff€inÐ ô$D # Ðaddition€to€the€elements€of€the€cause€of€action.€€The€majority€of€our€sisterÐ à%0!$ Ðjurisdictions€also€place€the€burden€on€plaintiffs€in€this€situation.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€AdventÐ Ì&"% ÐSys.€Ltd.€v.€Unisys€Corp.óó,€925€F.2d€670,€673€(3d€Cir.€1991)€(applying€PennsylvaniaÐ ¸'#& Ðlaw);€òòPhil€Crowley€Steel€Corp.óó,€782€F.2d€at€783;€òòAmerican€Med.€Ô_ÔIntððlÔ_Ôóó,€821€S.W.2dÐ ¤(ô#' Ðat€337;€òòHolloway€v.€Skinneróó,€898€S.W.2d€793,€796€(Tex.€1995).€€òòBut€see€BendixÐ )à$( ÐCorp.óó,€610€P.2d€at€29€(Alaska€1980).Ð|*Ì%)Ð Ð  ÐÐ h+¸&* ÐòòWCS€v.€GSIóó,€33€S.W.3d€779,€783€(Tenn.€2000).Ð ° ÐÌà  àEven€with€the€burden€of€proof€resting€on€the€non„moving€party€on€summary€judgment,€theÐ ˆØ Ðmoving€party€still€must€satisfy€his€burdens€under€T.R.C.P.€56.Ð tÄ ÐÌà8  àà ` àWhere€the€moving€party€adopts€this€second€option€and€seeks€summaryÐ L œ Ðjudgment€on€the€ground€that€the€nonmoving€party€„€„€who€will€bear€the€burden€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðpersuasion€at€trial€„€„€has€no€evidence,€the€mechanics€of€discharging€Rule€56ððs€burdenÐ $ t Ðof€production€are€somewhat€trickier.€€Plainly,€a€conclusory€assertion€that€theÐ  ` Ðnonmoving€party€has€no€evidence€is€insufficient.€€See€Ante,€at€328,€91€L€Ed€2d,€atÐ ü L  Ð277€(White,€J.,€concurring).€€Such€a€ððburdenðð€of€production€is€no€burden€at€all€andÐ è 8  Ðwould€simply€permit€summary€judgment€procedure€to€be€converted€into€a€tool€forÐ Ô$  Ðharassment.€€See€Louis€750„751.€€Rather,€as€the€Court€confirms,€a€party€who€movesÐ À  Ðfor€summary€judgment€on€the€ground€that€the€nonmoving€party€has€no€evidence€mustÐ ¬ü  Ðaffirmatively€show€the€absence€of€evidence€in€the€record.€€Ante,€at€323,€91€L€Ed€2d,Ð ˜è  Ðat€273.€€This€may€require€the€moving€party€to€depose€the€nonmoving€partyððsÐ „Ô  Ðwitnesses€or€to€establish€the€inadequacy€of€documentary€evidence.€€If€there€is€literallyÐ pÀ Ðno€evidence€in€the€record,€the€moving€party€may€demonstrate€this€by€reviewing€forÐ \¬ Ðthe€court€the€admissions,€interrogatories,€and€other€exchanges€between€the€partiesÐ H˜ Ðthat€are€in€the€record.€€Either€way,€however,€the€moving€party€must€affirmativelyÐ 4„ Ðdemonstrate€that€there€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€to€support€a€judgment€for€theÐ  p Ðnonmoving€party.Ð \Ð Ð  ÐÌòòCelotex€Corp.€v.€Catrettóó,€477€U.S.€317,€91€L.Ed.2d€265,€106€S.Ct.€2548.׃2×Ý ƒ3#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àIn€meeting€their€burden€under€Rule€56,€the€defendants€filed€Plaintiffsðð€responses€to€its€firstÐ ¼  Ðset€of€interrogatories.€€In€its€first€response,€Plaintiffs€answered:Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àà ` àMETRIC׃4Ü×Ý ƒ3#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×,€at€all€relevant€times,€was€controlled,€directly€or€indirectly,€byÐ €Ð ÐDefendants,€or€some€of€them;€METRIC€could€not€act€except€at€the€direction€of€suchÐ l¼ Ðpersons.€€Thus,€the€relevant€acts€of€METRIC€were€caused,€induced,€and€procured€byÐ X ¨ ÐDefendants.ÐD!”Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àThe€Defendants€caused€METRIC€to€enter€into€the€Settlement€Agreement€withÐ 0"€  ÐNashville€Lodging€Co.,€Kenneth€Nelson,€and€others,€referred€to€in€DefendantsððÐ #l! Ðdefinitions€as€the€SETTLEMENT€AGREEMENT.€€Shortly€after€entering€into€theÐ $X" Ðagreement,€the€Defendants€were€advised€by€their€Nashville€counsel,€Alan€Fister,€thatÐ ô$D # Ðthe€effect€of€the€contemplated€transaction€(purchase€of€the€land€ð ðas€isðð)€would€placeÐ à%0!$ ÐMETRICððs€entire€investment€in€the€Nashville€Residence€Inn€ð ðat€riskðð€in€that€it€wouldÐ ° Ðbe€subject€to€the€Hardage€liens.€€òòSeeóó,€Letter€dated€April€7,€1995€from€A.€Fister€to€J.Ð œì ÐJabor.€€The€Defendants€realized€this€was€a€disastrous€result€for€METRIC€becauseÐ ˆØ ÐMETRIC€would€have€to€resolve€the€Hardage€liens€to€protect€its€property.€€METRIC€Ð tÄ Ðclaims€that€it€never€would€have€entered€into€the€agreement€had€it€fully€understood€theÐ `° Ðinformation€provided€by€Fister.ÐL œÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àMETRIC€has€now€sued€its€counsel,€James€Reuben,€alleging€that€ReubenÐ 8 ˆ Ðfailed€to€fully€explain€the€implications€of€the€Settlement€Agreement,€but€all€of€theÐ $ t ÐDefendants€are€responsible€for€this€purported€mistake€because€they€approved€theÐ  ` Ðsettlement€on€behalf€of€METRIC€or€participated€in€efforts€to€avoid€the€transactionÐ ü L  Ðthat€METRIC€had€agreed€to€perform.€€There€is€no€reason€that€Fisterððs€opinion€couldÐ è 8  Ðnot€have€been€obtained€before€METRIC€entered€into€the€agreement.€€Shortly€afterÐ Ô$  Ðentering€into€the€agreement,€the€Defendants€realized€they€had€made€a€terrible€mistakeÐ À  Ðin€their€management€of€METRIC.Ьü Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àOnce€Defendants€fully€understood€the€implications€of€the€settlement,€ratherÐ ˜è  Ðthan€causing€METRIC€to€perform€the€agreement€(and€taking€responsibility€for€theirÐ „Ô  Ðown€negligence€and€mismanagement),€the€Defendants€instead€caused€METRIC€toÐ pÀ Ðrefuse€to€perform€its€obligations€under€the€SETTLEMENT€AGREEMENT.€€AsÐ \¬ Ðfound€by€the€Court€in€the€BREACH€ACTION,€METRIC€breached€the€agreement€byÐ H˜ Ðrefusing€to€attend€to€documentation€of€the€settlement,€by€refusing€to€purchase€theÐ 4„ Ðland,€and€by€refusing€to€release€Nelson.€€Defendants€also€caused€METRIC€to€breachÐ  p Ðits€duty€of€good€faith€and€fair€dealing,€by€repudiating€the€SETTLEMENTÐ  \ ÐAGREEMENT,€and€by€failing€to€perform€its€implied€obligation€to€protect€NLC€fromÐ øH Ðclaims€asserted€by€Orlando€Residence,€Ltd.€€Numerous€breaches€of€the€SettlementÐ ä4 ÐAgreement€have€been€identified€in€the€papers€filed€in€the€BREACH€ACTION.€€EachÐ Ð  Ðand€every€beach€cannot€be€separately€identified€because€breaches€by€METRIC€areÐ ¼  Ðcontinuous€and€ongoing;€however,€plaintiffs€do€not€believe€that€METRIC€performedÐ ¨ø Ðany€obligation€of€METRIC€under€the€SETTLEMENT€AGREEMENT.€€METRICÐ ”ä Ðcontinues€to€breach€in€ways€that€include,€without€limitation,€breaching€the€duty€ofÐ €Ð Ðgood€faith€and€fair€dealing€as€shown€by€METRICððs€ð ðmending€of€the€hold,ðð€byÐ l¼ ÐMETRICððS,€and€Defendantsðð,€continued€denial€of€the€existence€of€a€bindingÐ X ¨ Ðsettlement€agreement,€as€shown€even€in€Defendantsðð€definition€of€SETTLEMENTÐ D!” ÐAGREEMENT,€and€by€METRICððs€continued€failure€to€release€Kenneth€E.€Nelson.Ð0"€ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àRather€than€take€responsibility€for€their€mistakes€and€mismanagement,Ð #l! ÐDefendants€caused€METRIC€to€breach€the€agreement,€to€litigate€with€Nelson€andÐ $X" ÐNLC€in€various€forums€and€to€try€and€avoid€the€agreement.€€By€pursuing€this€course,Ð ô$D # ÐDefendants€caused€great€expense€and€damages€to€Plaintiffs.€€This€was€designed€toÐ à%0!$ Ðprotect€the€interests€of€Defendants€rather€than€the€best€interests€of€METRIC.ÐÌ&"%Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àAccepting€as€true€such€a€response,€Metric€might€be€justified€in€firing€all€of€the€defendantsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfor€being€incompetent€but€it€provides€no€proof€at€all€that€the€defendants€were€acting€wrongfully,€byÐ )à$( Ðwrongful€means,€or€outside€the€scope€of€their€employment€with€Metric€in€avoiding€a€disastrous€resultÐ |*Ì%) Ðfor€Metric€caused€by€their€own€negligence.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àDefendants€further€support€their€motion€for€summary€judgment€by€the€following€testimonyÐ ° Ðof€Mr.€Nelson,€near€the€end€of€a€277€page€deposition:Ð œì ÐÌà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àWhen€I€say€„€„€let€me€„€„€let€me€explain€it€and€then€you€can€answer€theÐ tÄ Ðquestion.€€When€I€say€that€an€individual€acts€within€the€scope€of€his€employment,€IÐ `° Ðmean€that€the€individual€is€taking€action€that€is€consistent€with€the€general€scope€ofÐ L œ Ðhis€duties€as€an€employee€of€the€corporation,€whatever€might€motivate€those€actions.€Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àà ¸ àDo€you€have€any€belief€or€any€facts€to€suggest€that€any€of€theÐ $ t Ðindividual€defendants€in€this€case€were€acting€outside€the€scope€of€their€generalÐ  ` Ðresponsibilities€as€employees€of€Metric€or€its€affiliates?Ðü L Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àA.à0¸ Ð Ð àMetric€meaning€Metric€Partners€Growth€Suite€Investors€„€„Ðè 8 ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà  àà ` àQ.à0 ¸ àYes.ÐÔ$ ¸ (#¸ (# Ðà  àà ` àA.à0 ¸ à„€„€or€its€affiliates?ÐÀ ¸ (#¸ (# Ðà8  àà ` àQ.à0¸ Ð Ð àOr€its€affiliates.Ьü ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àà ¸ àMR.€FELKER:€Object€to€the€question.€€Itððs€compound€and€complex.€Ð ˜è  ÐGo€ahead.Ð„Ô Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` àA.à0 ¸ àYes.ÐpÀ¸ (#¸ (# Ðà  àà ` àQ.à0 ¸ àWhat€facts€do€you€have€to€suggest€that?Ð\¬¸ (#¸ (# Ðà8  àà ` àA.à ¸ àWell,€I€donððt€think€itððs€in€the€scope€of€anybodyððs€employment€to€actÐ H˜ Ðcontrary€to€the€interests€of€the€employer€or€parties€to€whom€the€employer€has€aÐ 4„ Ðfiduciary€duty.€€When€youððre€acting€to€protect€yourself€against€the€consequences€ofÐ  p Ðyour€mistake,€I€donððt€think€thatððs€in€the€scope€of€your€employment.€€I€donððt€„€„€I€donððtÐ  \ Ðknow€if€youððre€a€partner€or€associate€or€whatever,€but€I€donððt€think€you€have€the€rightÐ øH Ðto,€you€know,€act€counter€to€Farris„Warfield.€€I€donððt€think€thatððs€in€the€scope€of€yourÐ ä4 Ðemployment.ÐÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àAgain,€Mr.€Nelson€presents€no€facts€whatever,€but€rather€his€own€opinion€as€to€what€was€inÐ ¨ø Ðthe€best€interest€of€Metric.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àThe€litigation€in€California€and€the€litigation€in€Tennessee€were€running€essentially€parallelÐ l¼ Ðcourses.€€It€is€obvious€that€the€left€hand€of€GSI€in€San€Francisco€did€not€know€what€the€right€handÐ X ¨ Ðof€GSI€was€doing€in€Nashville€and€vice€versa.€€The€left€hand€of€GSI€in€California,€acting€inÐ D!” Ðaccordance€with€the€Long„Komanowski€Memorandum€of€March€23,€1993€settled,€in€open€court,€theÐ 0"€  ÐSan€Francisco€litigation€with€Kenneth€Nelson.€€On€April€7,€1993,€the€right€hand€of€GSI€in€Nashville,Ð #l! Ðdelivered€to€the€left€hand€in€California,€the€Fister€Memorandum,€pointing€out€the€disastrousÐ $X" Ðconsequences€to€GSI€that€would€result€in€Nashville€by€consummation€of€the€California€settlementÐ ô$D # Ðagreement.€€Armed€with€the€Fister€Memorandum,€albeit€it€too€late€to€un„ring€the€bell€of€theÐ à%0!$ ÐCalifornia€March€23,€1993€settlement,€these€defendants,€acting€for€GSI,€chose€the€lesser€of€two€evilsÐ Ì&"% Ðand€on€their€collective€recommendations,€GSI€breached€the€California€settlement€agreement€andÐ ¸'#& Ðopened€the€door€for€a€breach€of€contract€action€by€Nelson.€€Indeed,€Nelson€exercised€his€right€ofÐ ¤(ô#' Ðaction€against€GSI€for€breach€of€the€California€settlement€agreement€by€filing€a€third€party€complaintÐ )à$( Ðagainst€GSI€in€òòOrlando€Residence,€Ltd.€v.€2300€Elm€Hill€Pike,€Inc.,€Nashville€Lodging€Co.,€andÐ |*Ì%) ÐWilliam€Rosenburg,€Trustee,óó€Dav.€Chancery€No.€94„1911„1.€€On€February€9,€1996,€Chancellor€IrvinÐ h+¸&* ÐKilcrease€granted€summary€judgment€to€Nelson€on€the€third€party€complaint€and€determined,€as€aÐ ° Ðmatter€of€law,€that€GSI€had€breached€the€California€settlement€agreement€by€failing€to€purchase€theÐ œì Ðland.€€Damage€issues€were€left€to€be€tried€in€the€future.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àThe€record€shows€that€GSI€sued€its€counsel€in€California€for€legal€malpractice€in€negotiating€Ð `° Ðand€agreeing€to€the€California€settlement.€€If€the€corporate€structure€of€GSI€determined€by€corporateÐ L œ Ðinternal€means€or€by€litigation,€to€have€the€defendants€at€bar€answer€to€GSI€for€negligence€or€lackÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€diligence,€so€be€it.€€Kenneth€Nelson,€however,€is€a€stranger€to€GSI€and€these€defendants,€actingÐ $ t Ðwithin€the€scope€of€their€employment€with€GSI,€are€protected€by€privilege€from€the€Nelson€actionÐ  ` Ðunless€Nelson€can€affirmatively€bring€them€within€an€exception€to€the€privilege€rule.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àIn€the€context€of€an€action€by€an€at„will€corporate€employee€against€corporate€officers€forÐ Ô$  Ðintentional€interference€with€employment,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€observed:Ð À  ÐÌà8  àà ` àA€corporation€can€act€only€upon€the€advice€of€its€officers€and€agents,€and€itsÐ ˜è  Ðofficers€and€directors€have€a€duty€to€serve€the€corporation.€€Important€societalÐ „Ô  Ðinterests€are€served€by€corporations€having€the€clear€and€candid€advice€of€theirÐ pÀ Ðofficers€and€agents.€€Fear€of€personal€liability€would€tend€to€limit€such€advice.€Ð \¬ ÐConsequently,€when€an€officer,€director,€or€employee€of€a€corporation€acts€within€theÐ H˜ Ðgeneral€range€of€his€authority,€and€his€actions€are€substantially€motivated€by€an€intentÐ 4„ Ðto€further€the€interest€of€the€corporation,€in€claims€of€intentional€interference€withÐ  p Ðemployment,€the€action€of€the€officer,€director,€or€employee€is€considered€to€be€theÐ  \ Ðaction€of€the€corporation€and€is€entitled€to€the€same€immunity€from€liability.ÐøHÐ Ð  ÐÌòòForrester€v.€Stockstillóó,€869€S.W.2d€328,€334„35€(Tenn.€1994).Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àòòForrester€v.€Stockstillóó€quoted€with€approval€òòFeaheny€v.€Caldwellóó,€175€Mich.€App.€291,€437Ð ¨ø ÐN.W.2d€358€(1989)€wherein€the€Michigan€court€observed:Ð ”ä ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€obstacle€that€plaintiff€faced€was€to€establish€wrongfulÐ l¼ Ðinterference€on€the€part€of€the€five€defendants.€€As€noted€above,€thisÐ X ¨ Ðrequired€proof€that€each€defendant€did€òòper€seóó€wrongful€acts€or€didÐ D!” Ðlawful€acts€with€malice€and€without€justification.€€Also€required€wasÐ 0"€  Ðproof,€with€specificity,€of€affirmative€acts€by€the€defendants€whichÐ #l! Ðcorroborated€the€unlawful€purpose€of€the€interference.€€Further,€sinceÐ $X" Ðall€five€defendants€were€corporate€officers,€plaintiff€faced€the€veryÐ ô$D # Ðdifficult€obstacle€of€showing€that€each€defendant€stood€as€a€third€partyÐ à%0!$ Ðto€the€employment€contract€at€the€time€he€allegedly€performed€theÐ Ì&"% Ðacts.€€This€is€so,€because,€as€corporate€officers,€the€defendants€servedÐ ¸'#& Ðas€agents€whose€acts€were€privileged€when€acting€for€and€on€behalfÐ ¤(ô#' Ðof€the€corporation,€rather€than€acting€to€further€strictly€personalÐ )à$( Ðmotives.Ð|*Ì%)` x` x ÐÐ h+¸&* ÐòòForresteróó,€869€S.W.2d€328,€335€(Tenn.€1994).Ð ° ÐÌà  àWhile€òòForrester€v.€Stockstillóó€dealt€with€at„will€employment,€the€principles€laid€out€thereinÐ ˆØ Ðare€general€in€contract€interference€cases€as€was€observed€by€the€court€in€quoting€from€an€annotationÐ tÄ Ðin€72€ALR€4th,€492€(1989):Ð `° ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àSome€courts€have€recognized€that€generally€a€corporate€director,Ð 8 ˆ Ðofficer,€or€employee€is€not€liable€for€tortiously€interfering€with€aÐ $ t Ðcorporate€contract,€because€he€is€considered€a€party€to€the€contract,€asÐ  ` Ðlong€as€he€is€acting€to€serve€the€corporate€interests,€or€unless€hisÐ ü L  Ðactivity€involves€individual€separate€tortious€acts.€€Courts€have€alsoÐ è 8  Ðrecognized,€however,€that€a€corporate€director,€officer,€or€employeeÐ Ô$  Ðmay€be€liable€for€tortiously€interfering€with€a€corporate€contract€if€heÐ À  Ðis€acting€outside€the€scope€of€his€authority,€acting€with€malice,€orÐ ¬ü  Ðacting€to€serve€his€own€interests.Иè ` x` x Ðà  àòòà ` àId.óó€at€501€(references€to€sections€omitted).Ð „Ô  ÐÌòòForresteróó,€869€S.W.2d€328,€333€(Tenn.€1994).Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àPlaintiffs€at€bar€have€produced€no€evidence€that€any€of€the€defendants,€whether€their€actionsÐ 4„ Ðbe€competent€or€incompetent,€were€acting€outside€the€scope€of€their€authority€as€corporate€officersÐ  p Ðand€advisors€of€Ô_ÔGSIÔ_Ô,€acting€with€malice,€or€acting€to€serve€their€own€interests.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àThe€Supreme€Court€of€Tennessee,€in€òòWayne€Conversion€Systems,€Inc.€v.€GreenstoneÐ ä4 ÐIndustries,€Inc.óó,€33€S.W.3d€779€(Tenn.€2000),€in€the€context€of€a€parent€corporation€interfering€withÐ Ð  Ða€wholly€owned€subsidiary€corporation€contract€elaborated€on€its€holding€in€òòForrester€v.€Stockstillóó.€Ð ¼  ÐSaid€the€court:Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  à[W]e€adopted€principles€analogous€to€the€notion€that€a€corporate€parent€usually€hasÐ €Ð Ða€unity€of€interest€with€its€wholly„owned€subsidiary.€€òòIdóó.€at€334„35.€€In€that€case,€weÐ l¼ Ðstated€that€the€wrongful€interference€with€the€at„will€employment€by€a€third€personÐ X ¨ Ðis€actionable€only€if€that€person€stood€as€a€third€party€to€the€employment€relationshipÐ D!” Ðat€the€time.€€òòId.óó€at€331.€€Since€a€corporation€can€act€only€upon€the€advice€of€itsÐ 0"€  Ðofficers€and€agents€and€since€important€societal€interests€are€served€by€corporationsÐ #l! Ðreceiving€candid€advice€from€these€persons,€we€held€that€officers,€directors,€andÐ $X" Ðemployees€were€immune€from€claims€of€intentional€interference€with€employmentÐ ô$D # Ðif€they€act€within€the€general€range€of€their€authority€and€their€actions€wereÐ à%0!$ Ðsubstantially€motivated€by€an€intent€to€further€the€interest€of€the€corporation.€€òòId.óó€atÐ Ì&"% Ð334„35.€€The€case,€in€the€end,€was€decided€in€favor€of€the€officers€because€there€wasÐ ¸'#& Ðinsufficient€proof€that€the€officers€were€not€acting€in€furtherance€of€the€corporationððsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðinterest.€€òòIdóó.€15€335;€òòsee€also€Schlater€v.€Haynieóó,€833€S.W.2d€919,€927€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð )à$( ÐApp.€1991).€€òòForresteróó€indicates€that€Tennessee€has€recognized€a€privilege€againstÐ |*Ì%) Ðan€interference€of€contract€claim€when€there€is€unity€of€interest€between€theÐ h+¸&* Ðinterfering€party€and€the€breaching€party.€€Forrester€also€shows€that€the€claim€can€beÐ ° Ðalleged€successfully€only€when€the€interfering€party€is€a€third€party€not€closely€tiedÐ œì Ðto€the€operations€of€the€breaching€corporation.ЈØÐ Ð  ÐÌòòWCS€v.€GSIóó,€33€S.W.3d€779,€782€(Tenn.€2000).Ð `° ÐÌà  àòòWCS€v.€GSIóó€further€held,€in€the€analogous€case€of€parent„wholly€owned€subsidiary,€that€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðprivilege€could€be€lost€by€the€parent€if€the€parent€used€ð ðwrongful€meansðð€in€interference€with€itsÐ $ t Ðwholly€owned€subsidiaries€contractual€relations.€€€Said€the€court:Ð  ` ÐÌà8  àà ` àIn€defining€the€meaning€of€ððwrongful€means,ðð€the€court€in€òòPaglinóó€stated€asÐ è 8  Ðfollows:ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà8 ` àIn€the€context€of€interference€with€contractual€relations,€ððwrongfulÐ ¬ü  Ðmeansðð€is€defined€to€include€acts€which€are€wrongful€in€and€ofÐ ˜è  Ðthemselves,€such€as€ððmisrepresentations€of€facts,€threats,€violence,Ð „Ô  Ðdefamation,€trespass,€restraint€of€trade,€or€any€other€wrongful€actÐ pÀ Ðrecognized€by€statute€or€common€law.ððÐ\¬` x` x ÐÌà8  à834€F.Supp.€at€1196.€€The€Second€Circuit€in€òòBoulevard€Associatesóó€also€characterizedÐ 4„ Ðthe€term€in€a€narrow€manner€to€include€ððfraud,€misrepresentation,€intimidation€orÐ  p Ðmolestation.ðð€€72€F.3d€at€1037.€€We€find€the€holdings€of€both€of€these€casesÐ  \ Ðpersuasive€and€believe€that€a€broad€definition€encompassing€both€rules€should€applyÐ øH Ðin€Tennessee.€€We€also€believe€that€the€burden€of€pleading€and€proving€that€theÐ ä4 Ðdefendant€parent€corporation€acted€with€wrongful€means€in€causing€its€wholly„ownedÐ Ð  Ðsubsidiary€to€breach€a€contract€should€be€on€the€plaintiff,€once€it€is€established€thatÐ ¼  Ðthe€defendant€corporation€owns€100€percent€of€the€stock€of€the€subsidiary€in€question.€Ð ¨ø ÐSuch€a€holding€accords€with€the€Tennessee€principles€discussed€above€regarding€theÐ ”ä Ðburden€of€proof€as€well€as€with€the€majority€view€of€our€sister€jurisdictions.€€òòSeeÐ €Ð ÐAdvent€Sys.€Ltd.óó,€925€F.2d€at€673;€òòPhil€Crowley€Steel€Corp.óó,€782€F.2d€at€783;Ð l¼ ÐòòAmerican€Med.€Intððlóó,€832€S.W.2d€at€337;€òòHollowayóó,€898€S.W.2d€at€796.€€òòBut€seeÐ X ¨ ÐBendix€Corp.óó,€610€P.2d€at€29.ÐD!”Ð Ð  ÐÌòòWCS€v.€GSIóó,€33€S.W.3d€779,€784€(Tenn.€2000).׃5×Ý ƒ3#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð #l! Їà  àThe€Supreme€Court€of€Oregon,€in€òòWelch€v.€Bancorp€Management€Servicesóó,€675€P.2d€172Ð ° Ð(Or.€1983),€explained,€in€an€articulate€opinion,€the€reasons€supporting€the€privilege:Ð œì ÐÌà8  àà ` àIn€òòWampler€v.€Palmerton,€supraóó,€this€court€held€that€the€managing€officer€andÐ tÄ Ðthe€business€adviser€of€a€corporation€who,€for€the€benefit€of€the€corporation,€inducedÐ `° Ðthe€corporation€to€breach€its€contract€with€a€third€party,€were€not€liable€to€the€thirdÐ L œ Ðparty€for€interfering€with€the€third€partyððs€contract€with€the€corporation.€€The€plaintiffÐ 8 ˆ Ðin€òòWampleróó€alleged€that€the€defendants,€by€inducing€the€corporate€breach€of€contract,Ð $ t Ðintended€to€enrich€the€corporation€and€thereby€indirectly€to€improve€their€ownÐ  ` Ðfinancial€conditions.Ðü L Ð Ð  Ѐà8  àà ` àIn€òòWampleróó,€we€said€that€a€person€who€interferes€with€a€contract€is€not€alwaysÐ è 8  Ðresponsible€for€the€resultant€injury.€€When€the€person€acts€to€promote€ðð*€*€*€anÐ Ô$  Ðinterest€which€is€equal€or€superior€in€social€value€to€that€with€which€he€interferes,€hisÐ À  Ðactions€are€said€to€be€privileged€or€justified.ðð€€250€Or.€at€74,€439€P.2d€601.Ьü Ð Ð  Ðà  àà8 ` àà ¸ àððIn€the€usual€interference€with€a€contract€situation,€the€personÐ ˜è  Ðinterfering€is€a€complete€stranger€to€the€contractual€relationship.€€AÐ „Ô  Ðcomplicating€ingredient€is€added€where€the€party€induced€to€breachÐ pÀ Ðits€contract€is€a€corporation€and€the€third€person€who€induces€theÐ \¬ Ðbreach€is€not€a€stranger,€but€is€a€person€who,€by€reason€of€his€positionÐ H˜ Ðwith€the€corporation,€owes€a€duty€of€advice€and€action€to€theÐ 4„ Ðcorporation.ðð€*€*€*€Ð p` x` x Ðà  àà8 ` àà ¸ àððA€corporation€can€only€act€upon€the€advice€of€officers€orÐ  \ Ðemploye[e]s€and€through€the€actions€of€agents.€€Doing€businessÐ øH Ðthrough€corporate€structures€is€a€recognized€and€necessary€incident€ofÐ ä4 Ðbusiness€life.€€A€party€is€usually€able€to€abandon€a€disadvantageousÐ Ð  Ðbut€valid€contract€and€be€responsible€for€breach€of€contract€only.€Ð ¼  ÐCorporations€would€substantially€be€prevented€from€similarlyÐ ¨ø Ðabandoning€disadvantageous€but€valid€contracts,€and€from€securingÐ ”ä Ðrelated€business€advice,€if€the€officers€and€employe[e]s€who€advisedÐ €Ð Ðand€carried€out€the€breach€had€to€run€the€risk€of€personalÐ l¼ Ðresponsibility€in€an€action€for€interference€with€contract.€€Therefore,Ð X ¨ Ðcourts€have€tended€to€shield€such€persons€from€responsibility€forÐ D!” Ðinducing€breach€of€the€corporate€contract,€often€saying€that€they€areÐ 0"€  Ðnot€liable€if€the€action€was€taken€in€ððgood€faithðð€and€for€the€benefit€ofÐ #l! Ðthe€corporation.ðð€€250€Or.€at€74„75,€439€P.2d€601.Ð$X"` x` x Ðà8  àFurther,€we€said€that€when€officers€or€employees€of€a€corporation€induce€theÐ ô$D # Ðcorporation€to€breach€its€contract€with€a€third€party€in€order€to€serve€interests€otherÐ à%0!$ Ðthan€those€of€the€corporation,€then€the€officers€and€employees€are€not€immune€fromÐ Ì&"% Ðâ âpersonal€liability€in€an€action€for€tortious€interference€with€that€contract.€€Thus,€toÐ ¸'#& Ðenjoy€immunity,€a€corporate€officer€or€employee€must€be€acting€with€the€intent€toÐ ° Ðbenefit€the€corporation.€€250€Or.€at€76„77,€439€P.2d€601.МìÐ Ð  Ðâ âà8  àà ` àThis€court€addressed€the€question€whether€lack€of€good€faith€exists€where€theÐ ˆØ Ðselfish€motivation€of€the€corporate€official€or€employee€for€inducing€the€corporateÐ tÄ Ðbreach€is€to€secure€derivative€benefits€from€the€improved€financial€condition€of€theÐ `° Ðcorporation.€€We€noted€that€most€corporate€officers€and€employees€have€someÐ L œ Ðpersonal€interest€in€the€financial€welfare€of€their€principal.€€Thus,€if€good€faith€wereÐ 8 ˆ Ðequated€with€lack€of€any€selfish€interest€in€enhancing€the€financial€condition€of€aÐ $ t Ðcorporation,€most€officers€or€employees€would€not€dare€to€give€the€business€adviceÐ  ` Ðthat€it€is€their€duty€to€render.€€Therefore,€we€held€that€good€faith€means€no€more€thanÐ ü L  Ðintent€to€benefit€the€corporation€and€is€not€equated€with€absence€of€a€personal€interestÐ è 8  Ðin€the€financial€welfare€of€the€corporation.€€òòWampler€v.€Palmerton,€supraóó,€250€Or.€atÐ Ô$  Ð76,€439€P.2d€601.€€€€ÐÀ Ð Ð  ÐÌòòWelch€v.€Bancorp€Management€Servicesóó,€675€P.2d€172,€176„77€(Or.€1983).Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€advisor€defendants€in€this€case,€acting€within€the€scope€of€their€employment,€having€ledÐ pÀ ÐGSI€into€the€California€settlement€agreement,€were€subsequently€made€aware€by€the€FisterÐ \¬ ÐMemorandum€of€the€disastrous€consequences€to€GSI€of€performing€the€settlement€agreement,Ð H˜ Ðreversed€position,€and€counseled€breach€of€the€settlement€agreement€and,€acceptance€of€the€resultantÐ 4„ Ðliability€in€damages€for€breach€of€contract.€€No€evidence€has€been€offered€establishing€lack€of€goodÐ  p Ðfaith,€improper€motive,€or€use€of€wrongful€means.€€The€burden€of€proof€to€establish€such€rests€on€theÐ  \ Ðplaintiffs.€€òòWCS€v.€Ô_ÔGSIÔ_Ôóó,€33€S.W.3d€779€(Tenn.€2000);òò€Forresteróó,€869€S.W.2d€328€(Tenn.€1994).òòóóÐ øH ÐÌà  àThe€motion€for€summary€judgment€by€the€advisor€defendants€was€properly€granted€by€theÐ Ð  Ðtrial€court€and€will€be€affirmed.Ð ¼  ÐÌòòÓ  ÓSUMMARY€JUDGMENT€FOR€THE€AFFILIATED€DEFENDANTSóóÐ ”ä ÐÌÓa%Óà  àOn€page€70€of€Appellantsðð€excellent€brief,€it€is€asserted:Ð l¼ ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€Affiliated€Defendants€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€on€the€grounds€that€eachÐ D!” Ðwas€a€direct€or€indirect€general€partner€of€Metric€and€hence€could€not€as€a€matter€ofÐ 0"€  Ðlaw€be€liable€for€inducing€a€breach€of€contract€by€Metric.€€R.€at€104„105.€€After€€aÐ #l! Ðhearing€on€Affiliated€Defendantsðð€motion€to€dismiss,€the€trial€court€elected€to€treatÐ $X" Ðthe€motion€to€dismiss€as€one€for€summary€judgment€pursuant€to€T.R.C.P.€12.02(6)Ð ô$D # Ðand€granted€the€motion€on€the€grounds€that€there€were€no€genuine€issues€of€materialÐ à%0!$ Ðfact.ÐÌ&"%Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àThis€ruling€was€erroneous€since€the€trial€court€disregarded€the€requirement€ofÐ ¸'#& ÐT.R.C.P.€12.02€that€if€the€trial€court€determines€to€treat€a€motion€to€dismiss€as€oneÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfor€summary€judgment,€then€ððall€parties€shall€be€given€reasonable€opportunity€toÐ )à$( Ðpresent€all€material€pertinent€to€such€a€motion€by€Rule€56.ðð€€T.R.C.P.€12.02.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐPlaintiffs€had€no€reason€to€put€on€proof€to€establish€a€factual€record€of€the€separateÐ h+¸&* Ðinterests€or€motives€of€the€Affiliated€Defendants€since€the€issue€before€the€Court€wasÐ ° Ðpurely€a€legal€question.€€Had€the€Plaintiffs€been€given€a€reasonable€opportunity€toÐ œì Ðestablish€these€facts,€Plaintiffs€could€have€done€so.€€Since€Plaintiffs€were€never€givenÐ ˆØ Ðthis€opportunity,€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€AffiliatedÐ tÄ ÐDefendants€should€be€reversed.€Ð`°Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€record€does€not€support€an€assertion€that€Chancellor€Ellen€Hobbs€Lyle,€who€convertedÐ 8 ˆ Ðthis€motion€into€a€Rule€56€motion€for€summary€judgment€and€granted€it,€acted€to€the€surprise€of€theÐ $ t Ðappellants.€€The€Appelleesðð€renewed€motion€to€dismiss€under€T.R.C.P.€Rule€12.02(6)€was€filed€JuneÐ  ` Ð1,€1998,€together€with€the€affidavits€of€Robert€A.€Fiddaman,€Joseph€D.€Long,€Chris€Komanowski,Ð ü L  ÐW.€Patrick€McDowell,€Ronald€Ô_ÔZuzackÔ_Ô,€Herman€H.€Howerton,€and€Mike€C.€Buckley.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àOn€July€13,€1998,€Appellants€filed€their€response€to€this€motion€to€dismiss,€asserting,€in€part:Ð À  ÐÌà8  àà ` àHowever,€the€Defendantsðð€purported€Rule€12.02(6)€motion€must€be€treatedÐ ˜è  Ðas€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€because€the€motion€relies€upon€matters€outsideÐ „Ô  Ðthe€pleadings.€€Plaintiffs€also€respond€with€an€Affidavit€of€Kenneth€Nelson€toÐ pÀ Ðdemonstrate:€(1)€the€Defendants€have€sufficient€contacts€in€Tennessee€for€this€CourtÐ \¬ Ðto€exercise€personal€jurisdiction€over€the€Defendants€as€a€matter€of€Tennessee€law;Ð H˜ Ð(2)€the€legal€claims€against€the€remaining€Defendants€are€valid€under€the€law€ofÐ 4„ ÐCalifornia€and€Tennessee,€whichever€applies€here;€and€(3)€there€are€genuine€issuesÐ  p Ðof€material€fact€that€preclude€summary€judgment€in€this€case.€€Ð \Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThis€36€page€response€by€the€appellants€of€July€13,€1998€is€replete€with€factual€assertionsÐ ä4 Ðbased€in€great€part,€on€a€62€paragraph€affidavit€of€Kenneth€E.€Nelson€which€was€also€filed€on€JulyÐ Ð  Ð13,€1998.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àBoth€the€Rule€12.02(2)€motion€by€the€individual€Defendants€for€dismissal€for€lack€of€personalÐ ”ä Ðjurisdiction,€and€the€Rule€12.02(6)€motion€on€behalf€of€the€affiliated€defendants€to€dismiss€for€failureÐ €Ð Ðto€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€could€be€granted,€came€on€to€be€heard€before€Chancellor€Lyle€onÐ l¼ ÐAugust€14,€1998,€and,€on€September€4,€1998,€the€Chancellor€entered€an€order€denying€the€RuleÐ X ¨ Ð12.02(2)€motion€of€the€advisor€defendants€and€as€to€the€Rule€12.02(6)€motion€as€to€the€affiliatedÐ D!” Ðdefendants€held:Ð 0"€  ÐÌà8  àà ` àBased€upon€the€motions,€pleadings,€affidavits€and€arguments€of€counsel,€theÐ $X" ÐCourt€finds€as€follows:Ðô$D #Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` à.€.€.€.Ð à%0!$ Ðà8  àà ` à2.à ¸ àThe€Court€finds€that€the€motion€of€Defendants€Metric€Realty,€MetricÐ Ì&"% ÐRealty€Corp.,€Metric€Holdings,€Inc.,€GIH€Associates€II,€L.P.,€and€Metric€RealtyÐ ¸'#& ÐServices,€Inc.€to€dismiss€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€has€been€converted€into€a€motionÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfor€summary€judgment€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€12.02(6)€because€the€partiesÐ )à$( Ðsubmitted€matters€outside€the€pleadings€that€were€presented€and€non€excluded€by€theÐ |*Ì%) ÐCourt.€€The€Court€further€finds€that€no€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€exist€relevantÐ h+¸&* Ðto€the€claims€asserted€against€these€defendants,€and€that€this€motion€should€beÐ ° ÐGRANTED.МìÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àThe€Court€notes€that€all€of€these€defendants€are€direct€or€indirect€generalÐ ˆØ Ðpartners€of€Metric€Partners€Growth€Suite€Investors,€L.P.,€the€contracting€party.€Ð tÄ ÐPlaintiffs€have€not€alleged€or€established€that€these€defendants€had€motives€orÐ `° Ðinterests€in€the€performance€or€non„performance€of€the€settlement€agreement€anyÐ L œ Ðdifferent€from€the€motives€or€interests€of€the€contracting€party,€Metric€PartnersÐ 8 ˆ ÐGrowth€Suite€Investors,€L.P.€€No€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€exist,€and€theseÐ $ t Ðdefendants€are€entitled€to€judgment€in€their€favor,€as€a€matter€of€law.Ð `Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThus,€not€only€did€the€appellants€fail€to€object€to€the€treatment€by€Chancellor€Lyle€of€the€RuleÐ è 8  Ð12.02(6)€motion€as€a€summary€judgment€motion€under€Rule€56,€but€on€the€first€page€of€theirÐ Ô$  Ðresponse€to€the€renewed€motion€informed€her€that€she€was€compelled€to€treat€it€as€a€motion€forÐ À  Ðsummary€judgment€and€proceeded€to€compound€the€necessity€for€converting€it€to€a€Rule€56€motionÐ ¬ü  Ðby€filing€the€extensive€affidavit€of€Kenneth€Nelson.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àOnce€converted€to€a€Rule€56€motion€for€summary€judgment,€Appellants€face€the€sameÐ pÀ Ðproblems€with€the€affiliated€defendants€as€they€face€with€the€advisor€defendants.€€None€of€theseÐ \¬ ÐDefendants€owe€any€fiduciary€duty€to€any€of€the€appellants.€€They€owe€their€loyalty€to€GSI€and€thereÐ H˜ Ðis€simply€no€evidence€in€the€record€that€they€acted€either€outside€the€scope€of€their€agency€orÐ 4„ Ðemployment€with€GSI,€acted€in€less€than€good€faith,€or€applied€wrongful€means€in€counseling€GSIÐ  p Ðto€breach€the€contract€with€Plaintiffs€and€accept€the€consequences.€€They€made€a€mistake€inÐ  \ Ðcounseling€GSI€to€accept€the€California€settlement€but€because€of€insufficient€information€did€notÐ øH Ðrealize€the€adverse€consequences€for€GSI€of€the€settlement€until€they€received€the€FisterÐ ä4 ÐMemorandum.€€Then€they€advised€GSI€to€breach€the€contract€for€reasons€best€expressed€by€RobertÐ Ð  ÐA.€Fiddaman€in€his€deposition:Ð ¼  ÐÌà8  àQ.à ` àMy€question€is,€why€didnððt€Metric€go€ahead€and€purchase€the€property€underÐ ”ä Ðthe€settlement€agreement€and€then€if€it€had€some€dire€consequences€go€after€thoseÐ €Ð Ðpeople€who€had€advised€Metric€to€enter€into€the€deal?Ðl¼Ð Ð  Ðà  àA.à0 ` àThat€would€be€a€pretty€stupid€business€decision.ÐX ¨` (#` (# Ðà  àQ.à0 ` àWhy?ÐD!”` (#` (# Ðà8  àA.à ` àWhy€would€you€„€„€litigation€has€started€out€over€less€than€$200,000€that€wasÐ 0"€  Ðgoing€to€be€settled€by,€you€know,€this€land€purchase€deal€about€which€I€donððtÐ #l! Ðremember€the€economics€of€at€all.€€Why€would€you€put€at€risk€a€12€million€dollarÐ $X" Ðinvestment€in€a€totally€unrelated€property€to€try€to€settle€the€matter€and€then€try€toÐ ô$D # Ðrecoup€that€by€suing€people?€€That€makes€no€sense€at€all.€€I€would€never€make€thatÐ à%0!$ Ðbusiness€decision.ÐÌ&"%Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThere€is€no€doubt€it€was€embarrassing€for€the€defendants€but€their€duty€was€to€GSI.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àThe€motion€for€summary€judgment€for€the€affiliated€defendants€was€correctly€sustained€byÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€Chancellor€and€will€be€affirmed.Ð h+¸&* ЇÌòòÓ  ÓSTATUTE€OF€LIMITATIONSóóÐ œì ÐÌÓIÓà  àAppellees€appeal€the€denial€by€the€trial€court€of€their€motion€for€summary€judgment€basedÐ tÄ Ðupon€the€expiration€of€the€statute€of€limitations.€€In€overruling€this€motion€we€find€the€ChancellorÐ `° Ðto€be€in€error.Ð L œ Ðà  àÌà  àThe€complaint€in€this€case€was€filed€on€June€26,€1997.€€The€applicable€statute€of€limitationsÐ $ t Ðof€the€State€of€California€is€two€years.€€òòCalifornia€Civil€Code€of€Procedureóó€€ðð€339.€€The€cause€ofÐ  ` Ðaction€accrues€on€the€date€of€the€alleged€wrongful€act€and€can€not€be€later€in€the€actual€breach€of€theÐ ü L  Ðcontract€by€the€party€who€was€wrongfully€induced€to€breach€it.€€òòTrembath€v.€Digardióó,€43€Cal.€App.Ð è 8  Ð3d€at€434.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àThe€Tennessee€statute€of€limitations€is€three€years.€€òòóóT.C.A.€ðð€28„3„105.€€The€cause€of€actionÐ ¬ü  Ðaccrues€when€the€injury€occurs€or€is€discovered€or€when,€in€the€exercise€of€reasonable€care€andÐ ˜è  Ðdiligence,€it€should€have€been€discovered.€€òòÔ_ÔMcCroskeyÔ_Ô€v.€Bryant€Air€Conditioning€Co.óó,€524€S.W.2dÐ „Ô  Ð487€(Tenn.€1975).Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€record€in€this€case€establishes€that€the€breach€of€contract€relative€to€the€CaliforniaÐ H˜ Ðsettlement€agreement€occurred€no€later€than€August€27,€1993.€€In€the€breach€of€contract€action€filedÐ 4„ Ðby€Nelson€against€GSI€in€the€Chancery€Court€of€Davidson€County,€Chancellor€Kilcrease€so€held€inÐ  p Ðhis€order€of€February€9,€1996:€€The€discovery€rule€does€not€permit€a€plaintiff€in€Tennessee€to€waitÐ  \ Ðuntil€he€knows€all€of€the€injurious€effects€or€consequences€of€a€tortious€act.€€The€statute€is€tolled€onlyÐ øH Ðduring€the€period€when€the€plaintiff€has€no€knowledge€at€all€that€a€wrong€has€occurred€and€as€aÐ ä4 Ðreasonable€person€is€not€put€on€inquiry.€€òòTeeters€v.€Curreyóó,€518€S.W.2d€512€(Tenn.€1974);€òòWoodsÐ Ð  Ðv.€Sherwin„Williams€Co.óó,€666€S.W.2d€77€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983).€€On€January€31,€1994,€NashvilleÐ ¼  ÐLodging€Company,€a€Kenneth€Nelson€company,€filed€suit€in€Wisconsin€against€Metric€PartnersÐ ¨ø ÐGrowth€Suite€Investors,€L.P.€and€one€of€the€defendants€in€this€case,€Chris€Komanowski,€alleging,Ð ”ä Ðin€part:€Ð €Ð ÐÌà8  à4.€€On€March€23,€1993,€a€settlement€agreement€was€reached€by€which€it€was€agreedÐ X ¨ ÐNLC€would€convey€real€estate€located€in€Nashville,€Tennessee€for€an€agreed€priceÐ D!” Ðand€under€agreed€terms€to€GSI.€€Ð0"€ Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` à.€.€.€.Ð #l! Ðà8  à8.€€Shortly€after€entering€the€settlement€agreement,€GSI€refused€to€purchase€theÐ $X" ÐNashville€real€estate€because€of€alleged€title€problems€with€the€Nashville€real€estate,Ð ô$D # Ðmost€prominently€the€Nashville€litigation€to€which€GSI€was€a€party€and€hadÐ à%0!$ Ðknowledge€of€prior€to€entering€into€the€settlement€agreement.ÐÌ&"%Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` à.€.€.€.Ð ¸'#& Ðà8  à13.€€GSIððs€refusal€to€purchase€the€Nashville€real€estate,€and€to€perform€the€otherÐ ¤(ô#' Ðterms€of€the€settlement€agreement,€constitute€breaches€of€the€settlement€agreement.Ð)à$(Ð Ð  Ðà8  à14.€€As€a€result€of€GSIððs€breaches€plaintiff€has€suffered€damages€including€withoutÐ |*Ì%) Ðlimitation:€(1)€legal€fees€paid€by€NLC€in€dealing€with€the€Nashville€litigation;€and€(2)Ð h+¸&* Ðthe€decrease€in€value€of€its€land€due€to€the€risk€associated€with€the€NashvilleÐ ° Ðlitigation.МìÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€record€in€this€case€discloses€that€Kenneth€Nelson€testified€in€the€breach€of€contract€caseÐ tÄ Ðagainst€GSI€in€the€Chancery€Court€of€Davidson€County:€Ð `° ÐÌà8  àQ.à ` àWhen€do€you€believe€that€Metric€had€unequivocally€repudiated€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðsettlement?€€Ð$ tÐ Ð  Ðà8  àA.à ` àI€believe€that€Metric€had€decided€to€repudiate€not€later€than€some€time€inÐ  ` ÐApril€1993.Ðü L Ð Ð  Ðà8  àQ.à ` àBut€my€question€is€not€when€you€believe€Metric€made€a€decision,€€but€whenÐ è 8  Ðdid€you€believe€that€Metric€had€communicated€to€you€that€it€was€repudiating€theÐ Ô$  Ðsettlement?€€ÐÀ Ð Ð  Ðà  àA.à0 ` àNot€later€than€July€1993.€€That€may€have€been€earlier.€€€à0 ` (#` (#àЬü  (# (# Ðà  àÌà  àThus,€it€is€clear€that€Kenneth€Nelson€knew€the€contract€had€been€breached€by€GSI€as€earlyÐ „Ô  Ðas€July€1993€and€that€he€and€Nashville€Lodging€Company€had€suffered€damages€from€the€breach€noÐ pÀ Ðlater€than€January€31,€1994,€when€the€Wisconsin€action€was€filed.€€The€three€year€statute€ofÐ \¬ Ðlimitations€thus€had€expired€on€June€27,€1997,€when€the€suit€at€bar€was€filed.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àAppellants€attempt€to€avoid€the€statute€of€limitations€by€asserting€a€continuing€conspiracyÐ  p Ðamong€the€defendants.€€There€is,€in€this€case,€no€conspiracy€for€reasons€announced€by€the€SupremeÐ  \ ÐCourt€of€Tennessee€in€òòTrau„Med€of€America,€Inc.€v.€Allstate€Ins.€Co.óó,€2002€WL€451826€(Tenn.€Mar.Ð øH Ð25,€2002).€€Said€the€Supreme€Court:Ð ä4 ÐÌà8  àà ` àCourts€in€other€jurisdictions€„€„€both€federal€and€state€„€„€that€have€addressedÐ ¼  Ðissues€involving€civil€intracorporate€conspiracy€allegations€have€adopted€theÐ ¨ø Ðððintracorporate€conspiracy€immunity€doctrineðð€to€hold€that€wholly€intracorporateÐ ”ä Ðconduct€does€not€satisfy€the€plurality€requirement€necessary€to€establish€an€actionableÐ €Ð Ðconspiracy€claim.€€This€single€entity€view€of€intracorporate€conduct€derives€fromÐ l¼ Ðtraditional€principles€of€agency€law.€€A€basic€principle€of€agency€is€that€a€corporationÐ X ¨ Ðcan€act€only€through€the€authorized€acts€of€its€corporate€directors,€officers,€and€otherÐ D!” Ðemployees€and€agents.€€Thus,€the€acts€of€the€corporationððs€agents€are€attributed€to€theÐ 0"€  Ðcorporation€itself.€€ððThe€two€are€not€one€and€another.€€So€merged€are€their€identities,Ð #l! Ðwhen€the€agent€is€acting€for€the€corporation€(the€only€way€it€can€act€al€all),€that€theÐ $X" Ðone€may€not€be€an€accessory€of€the€other.ðð€€òòHaverty€Furniture€Co.€v.€Foustóó,€174Ð ô$D # ÐTenn.€203,€212,€124€S.W.2d€694,€698€(1939)€(citations€omitted).€€Because€the€lawÐ à%0!$ Ðrequires€two€or€more€persons€or€entities€to€have€a€conspiracy,€a€civil€conspiracy€is€notÐ Ì&"% Ðlegally€possible€where€a€corporation€and€its€alleged€co„conspirators€are€not€separateÐ ¸'#& Ðentities,€but€instead€stand€in€a€principal„agent€relationship.€€òòSeeóó€16€Am.Jur.2dÐ ¤(ô#' ÐConspiracy€ðð56€(1998).Ð)à$(Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àWe€recognize€the€rule€expressed€by€this€doctrine€as€a€sound€one,€andÐ |*Ì%) Ðconsequently,€we€hold€that€there€can€be€no€actionable€claim€of€conspiracy€where€theÐ h+¸&* Ðconspiratorial€conduct€alleged€is€essentially€a€single€act€by€a€single€corporation€actingÐ ° Ðthrough€its€officers,€directors,€employees,€and€other€agents,€òòeach€acting€within€theÐ œì Ðscope€of€his€or€her€employmentóó.€€The€acts€of€these€representatives,€if€performedÐ ˆØ Ðwithin€their€representative,€agency,€or€employment€capacities€on€behalf€of€theÐ tÄ Ðcorporation,€are€attributed€to€the€corporation.€€òòSeeóó€Forrester€v.€Stockstill,€869€S.W.2dÐ `° Ð328,€334„35€(Tenn.€1994).€€As€long€as€the€agent€is€acting€within€the€scope€of€his€orÐ L œ Ðher€authority,€the€agent€and€the€corporation€are€not€separate€entities€and€cannot€be€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðsole€parties€to€a€conspiracy.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€Day€v.€General€Elec.€Credit€Corp.,€15€Conn.Ð $ t ÐApp.€677,€546€A.2d€315,€318„19€(Conn.€App.€Ct.€1988).€€Indeed,€it€is€this€ððscope€ofÐ  ` Ðemploymentðð€exception€that€prevents€the€intracorporate€conspiracy€immunityÐ ü L  Ðdoctrine€from€being€applied€too€broadly€and€thereby€immunizing€all€privateÐ è 8  Ðconspiracies€from€redress€where€the€actors€coincidentally€were€employees€of€theÐ Ô$  Ðsame€company.€€òòSee€óóJohnson€v.€Hills€&€Dales€Gen.€Hosp.,€40€F.3d€837,€840€(6th€Cir.Ð À  Ð1994).€€Therefore,€for€a€claim€of€intracorporate€conspiracy€to€be€actionable,€theÐ ¬ü  Ðcomplaint€must€allege€that€corporate€officials,€employees,€or€other€agents€actedÐ ˜è  Ðoutside€the€scope€of€their€employment€and€engaged€in€conspiratorial€conduct€toÐ „Ô  Ðfurther€their€own€personal€purposes€and€not€those€of€the€corporation.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,Ð pÀ ÐRenner€v.€Wurdeman,€231€Neb.€8,€434€N.W.2d€536,€542€(Neb.€1989).Ð\¬Ð Ð  ÐÌòòTrau„Med€America,€Inc.€v.€Allstate€Ins.€Co.óó,€WL€451826,€at€*11€(Tenn.€Mar.€25,€2002).Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àThe€limitation€period€provided€by€section€28„3„105€expired€prior€to€the€time€this€action€wasÐ  \ Ðfiled€and€the€Chancellor€erred€in€denying€the€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€Appellants€producedÐ øH Ðno€evidence€that€the€Defendants€acted€for€personal€purposes€and€not€for€corporate€purposes.Ð ä4 ÐÌòòÓ  ÓCONCLUSIONóóÐ ¼  ÐÌÓpÓà  àIn€this€case,€Appellants€assert€that€the€law€of€Tennessee€governs€everything.€€Appellees€assertÐ ”ä Ðthat€the€law€of€California€is€controlling.€€Both€parties€agree€that€the€only€significant€difference€in€theÐ €Ð Ðlaw€of€Tennessee€and€the€law€of€California€is€that€the€statute€of€limitations€in€California€is€two€yearsÐ l¼ Ðand€the€statute€of€limitations€in€Tennessee€is€three€years.€€The€Chancellor€held€that€there€was€noÐ X ¨ Ðsignificant€difference€in€the€law€in€these€two€jurisdictions€and€we€agree.€€We€have€applied€the€lawÐ D!” Ðof€Tennessee€and€see€no€need€to€extend€this€opinion€with€an€academic€exercise€as€to€which€lawÐ 0"€  Ðshould€actually€apply.€€The€result€under€the€law€of€either€California€or€Tennessee€would€be€the€same.€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àThe€action€of€the€trial€court€in€granting€summary€judgment€to€the€advisor€defendants€andÐ ô$D # ÐMetric€Management,€Inc.,€whose€only€connection€with€the€case€was€its€status€as€employer€of€theÐ à%0!$ Ðindividual€defendants€Long,€Komanowski,€and€Ô_ÔZuzackÔ_Ô,€is€affirmed.€€The€action€of€the€chancellor€inÐ Ì&"% Ðconverting€the€Rule€12.02(6)€motion€to€dismiss€filed€by€the€affiliated€defendants€into€a€Rule€56Ð ¸'#& Ðmotion€for€summary€judgment€and€then€sustaining€same€is€affirmed.€€The€action€of€the€ChancellorÐ ¤(ô#' Ðin€overruling€the€motion€of€all€the€defendants€for€summary€judgment€because€of€expiration€of€theÐ )à$( Ðstatute€of€limitations€is€reversed€and€summary€judgment€on€such€grounds€is€granted.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àThe€case€is€affirmed€in€part,€reversed€in€part,€and€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€any€furtherÐ ° Ðproceedings€deemed€necessary.€€Costs€of€the€cause€are€assessed€against€Appellants€for€whichÐ œì Ðexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ð ˆØ ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð 8 ˆ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGE