(2d ed.1995). 11 . See, eg., Ruiz, 89 F.3d at 326 ("[The courts of several states have struggled to decide whether [successor liability law] is a part of corporate law or tort law."). 12 . See Webb v. Rodgers Mach. Mfg. Co., 750 F.2d 368, 374 (5th Cir.1985). 13 . 89 F.3d 320, 326 (7th Cir.1996). 14 . See, e.g., Ede v. Mueller Pump Co., 652 F.Supp. 656, 658 n. 1 (D.Colo.1987), disagreed with on different grounds, Florom v. Elliott Mfg., 867 F.2d 570, 579-80 (10th Cir.1989); Reed v. Armstrong Cork Co., 577 F.Supp. 246, 248 (E.D.Ark.1983); Korzetz v. Amsted Indus., 472 F.Supp. 136, 141-42 (E.D.Mich.1979), declined to follow on other grounds, Johnson v. Ventra Group, Inc., 191 F.3d 732, 746 (6th Cir.1999). 15 . See, e.g., In re Asbestos Litigation (Bell), 517 A.2d 697, 699 (Del.Super.1986) (<HOLDING>); American Nonwovens, Inc. v. Non Wovens Eng'g,
holding that a director of a corporation may be held hable for tortious interference with the corporations contracts if she exceeds the scope of her corporate authority in causing the breach of those contracts emphasis added holding that contracts should be interpreted to give effect to all provisions holding common officers between corporations are not enough to disregard corporate separateness holding communications between corporate counsel and corporations employees made for the purpose of rendering legal advice protected by attorneyclient privilege holding that corporate law should apply because key question was legal effect of contracts between corporations