Opinion ID: 533572
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Derivative State Law Claim for Duress and Coercion.

Text: 74 Kamerman seeks to have the Buyback Agreement rescinded on grounds of duress and coercion. New York law, which governs the question, establishes the following elements of economic duress: 75 (1) a threat, (2) which was unlawfully made, and (3) caused involuntary acceptance of contract terms, (4) because the circumstances permitted no other alternative. 76 Gulf & W. Corp. v. Craftique Prods., Inc., 523 F.Supp. 603, 610 (S.D.N.Y.1981). Here, Kamerman asserts that Reliance improperly threatened a tender offer. As the district court correctly concluded, however, it is not duress to threaten to take action which is legally permissible. Hammelburger v. Foursome Inn Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 580, 593 n. 4, 431 N.E.2d 278, 285 n. 4, 446 N.Y.S.2d 917, 924 n. 4 (1981). Tender offers are legal corporate actions. Accordingly, this claim also fails. 77