judgment, thereby defeating the third element of intentional interference with contractual relations. However, in analyzing whether inducement of breaching a contract is “justified,” the courts look to see if the defendant is privileged to interfere with contracts. Service by Air, Inc. v. Phoenix Cartage and Air Freight, LLC, 78 F.Supp.3d 852, 864 (N.D.Ill.2015). Under Illinois law, corporate officers are privileged to interfere with contracts. Id. citing HPI Health Care Servs., Inc. v. Mt. Vernon Hosp., Inc., 131 Ill.2d 145, 157, 137 Ill.Dec. 19, 545 N.E.2d 672 (Ill.1989). This privilege covers the acts of corporate officers, directors, and shareholders undertaken on behalf of the corporation. See, e.g., Swager v. Court, 77 Ill.2d 173, 32 Ill.Dec. 540, 395 N.E.2d 921, 928 (1979) (<HOLDING>); IOS Capital, Inc. v. Phoenix Printing, Inc.,
holding that the funds in the privatelyheld corporations account belonged to the corporation not to the individuals who owned the corporation and expressly stating that directors officers and shareholders of a corporation do not have standing to claim an ownership interest in corporate property in their individual capacities they must state a claim in the corporate name holding that a corporation exists as an entity apart from its shareholders even where the corporation has but one shareholder the general proposition of corporate identity apart from its shareholders leads us to conclude in accordance with decisions from other jurisdictions that the attorneys client is the corporation and not the shareholders recognizing privilege for corporate officers directors and shareholders to influence the actions of their corporation recognizing privilege holding that courts should not substitute their judgment for that of the directors of a corporation 