the public policy exception may be recognized on "a clear showing, based on some identifiable policy that has been ‘officially declared' in a statute or municipal regulation, or in the Constitution”). We perceive no error in the court’s ruling. 4 . Although we do not decide whether any particular cause of action would lie on the facts of this case under the law of the District of Columbia, or if applicable, of Maryland, on remand the parties and the trial court should consider claims based on intentional or reek-less misrepresentation, derived from the common law of torts, see, e.g., Carr v. Brown, 395 A.2d 79, 84 (D.C.1978) (describing tortious interference with prospective advantage as "loosely allied to defamation”); but see Elliott v. Healthcare Corp., 629 A.2d 6, 9 (D.C.1993) (<HOLDING>); or arising under statute, D.C. CODE § 51 —
holding absolutely privileged a communication to an administrative agency designed to prompt action by that agency holding absolutely privileged the filing of a mechanics lien prior to the judicial proceeding to foreclose it holding demand letter written prior to and during litigation absolutely privileged holding that defamation claim fails because communication by employer to dc office of employment services is absolutely privileged  holding that a defamation claim is a personal injury tort claim