Opinion ID: 76376
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claims Involving Hall Pride

Text: 31 Whetstone claims that Kraft UK tortiously interfered with Whetstone's business relationship with Hall Pride, but asserts that Kraft NA is liable for this tortious interference because the Kraft corporations hold themselves out to the public as one large entity. As support for this allegation, Whetstone alleges (1) that the letter to Hall Pride — the allegedly tortiously interfering act — was sent on Kraft Foods letterhead, which, apart from bearing a London address, is the same as the letterhead used during the Settlement Agreement negotiations; and (2) that Kraft Foods Inc.'s Initial Public Offering (IPO) documents state that Kraft NA owns Terry's Chocolate Orange, as well as other products manufactured by Kraft UK. 16 In order to hold Kraft NA liable for any tortious interference committed by Kraft UK, we must find sufficient evidence such that a reasonable fact finder could pierce Kraft UK's corporate veil. Peacock v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 432 So.2d 142, 143 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1983). There is insufficient evidence to do so in this case. 32 A review of Whetstone's evidence shows that there is no genuine issue as to whether the letterheads and IPO documents would allow a reasonable fact finder to determine that Kraft NA and Kraft UK are one large entity. First, the letter sent to Hall Pride shares only one thing in common with the letters used during the settlement negotiations — both have the Kraft logo (i.e. the word KRAFT inside an oval) with the words Kraft Foods appearing to the right thereof. Other than that, the letters are different. Whereas the letter to Hall Pride bears a United Kingdom address immediately below the words Kraft Foods, the letters from Kraft NA bear no address beneath those words where only the sender's name appears. Although, the Kraft NA letters bear a U.S. address, followed by several U.S. telephone numbers at the bottom of each page, the Kraft UK letter bears the legend Kraft Foods UK Ltd., followed by the words Registered and head Office and the same United Kingdom address that appears at the top of the letter. Neither the letters from Kraft UK nor those from Kraft NA bear the names, logos, or addresses of the other corporation — only the Kraft UK name appears at the top and bottom of the Kraft UK letter, and only the Kraft NA name appears at the bottom of the Kraft NA letters. The similarities between the Kraft UK letter and the Kraft NA letters are greatly outweighed by their differences and are not enough to hold Kraft NA liable for any tortious interference that may have occurred. See USP Real Estate Inv. Trust v. Discount Auto Parts, Inc., 570 So.2d 386, 390 (Fla.Dist.Ct. App.1990) (noting that in order to pierce the corporate veil, it must be shown not only that the wholly-owned subsidiary is a mere instrumentality of the parent corporation but also that the subsidiary was organized or used by the parent to mislead creditors or to perpetrate a fraud upon them). The IPO documents add little to this analysis. 17