ARTICLE
7 January 2025

Controlling Entities To Dealer Contracts Subject To Puerto Rico's Law 75 May Be Liable For Tortious Interference

FL
Foley & Lardner

Contributor

Foley & Lardner LLP looks beyond the law to focus on the constantly evolving demands facing our clients and their industries. With over 1,100 lawyers in 24 offices across the United States, Mexico, Europe and Asia, Foley approaches client service by first understanding our clients’ priorities, objectives and challenges. We work hard to understand our clients’ issues and forge long-term relationships with them to help achieve successful outcomes and solve their legal issues through practical business advice and cutting-edge legal insight. Our clients view us as trusted business advisors because we understand that great legal service is only valuable if it is relevant, practical and beneficial to their businesses.
Plaintiffs asserting claims for tortious interference of contracts covered by Puerto Rico's Dealer's Contracts Act, commonly known as Law 75, may automatically satisfy one element of such a claim.
Puerto Rico Corporate/Commercial Law

Plaintiffs asserting claims for tortious interference of contracts covered by Puerto Rico's Dealer's Contracts Act, commonly known as Law 75, may automatically satisfy one element of such a claim. Law 75 regulates relationships between distributors and manufacturers.

Ballester Hermanos, Inc. ("Ballester") was the exclusive Puerto Rico distributor for Brugal & Co., SA ("Brugal") rums since 1990. Ballester and Brugal never memorialized the partnership in writing, but due to the parties' course of dealings and exclusive relationship, there was no dispute that Ballester and Brugal entered a verbal distribution agreement under Law 75. Edrington Group USA, LLC ("Edrington") acquired a majority interest in Brugal in 2008. Eleven years later, it terminated Ballester's exclusive distribution agreement in favor of another distributor, CC1 Beer Distributors, Inc. ("CC1").

Ballester sued alleging Edrington tortiously interfered with the Brugal-Ballester distributorship. Edrington moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 for two reasons: (1) Ballester failed to join CC1 as a necessary party (12(b)(7)), and (2) Ballester did not state a plausible tortious interference claim (12(b)(6)).

As a threshold matter, the court held that because CC1 was merely a potential joint tortfeasor, it was not an indispensable party under the federal rules. So, the court denied Edrington's motion on this basis. Next, the court took on the issue of whether Ballester stated a claim for tortious interference.

A Controlling Entity is a Third Party Unless Otherwise Established

First, because tortious interference requires a third party's interference with a protected relationship, Edrington alleged it was not an independent third party because (1) it had replaced Brugal in the agreement through novation, and (2) Edrington controlled Brugal through its majority ownership. The court ruled that Edrington had failed to rebut both (1) the presumption against novation and (2) the presumption that a parent and subsidiary are separate corporate entities. In other words, Ballester adequately pled that Edrington was a third party to the agreement at issue.

A Contract Subject to Law 75 Meets the Contract Element of Tortious Interference

Second, the court considered Law 75's impact on tortious interference claims. An essential element of tortious interference is the existence of a valid contract. In Puerto Rico, contracts that have no fixed term or are terminable at will cannot be subject to tortious interference.

Because the oral agreement had no fixed or definite term, Edrington argued a tortious interference claim was precluded. Instead, the court ruled that because Law 75 applied, the oral dealer contract was not terminable at will, but rather, terminable only for just cause. Though there was no fixed term, Ballester could sue for tortious interference.

Intent is Not an Element of Tortious Interference in Puerto Rico

Finally, Edrington alleged it did not intend to interfere. In Puerto Rico, however, a tortious interference claim only requires knowledge of an established contract, regardless of intent.

Key Takeaways

Because a contract covered by Law 75 is per se terminable only for just cause, it automatically meets the contract element of a tortious interference claim in Puerto Rico. Since Puerto Rico has established that unwritten agreements could be covered by Law 75 depending on the parties' course of dealings (which this page previously covered here), suppliers and their controlling entities must take precautions when working with Puerto Rican distributors.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More