Chicago Business Litigation Lawyer Blog

As Chicago business, shareholder rights and commercial law litigators, we frequently handle cases involving allegations of business fraud or financial mismanagement, often as part of complex business dispute, that require significant expertise in financial issues. When handling a divorce involving a family business or other closely held company, we also sometimes find we need an expert's help properly valuing the business, so we can help our clients get the most equitable possible distribution of marital property.

Our Chicago and Naperville business litigation attorneys have handled many complex business and commecial law litigation matters which have involved presenting or cross-examining accounting witnesses.

While we're confident in our legal skills, these situations call for specialized financial skills. To give our clients the best possible representation in business, shareholder and other commercial disputes, we sometimes retain a forensic accountant or fraud examiner. Both of these jobs are twofold: They help attorneys and their clients understand the complex financial aspects of their cases, and they may also be called to testify as expert witnesses. A forensic accountant's job is to examine a person or corporation's accounts "cold," from the outside; the subject isn’t generally expected to cooperate. Similarly, a fraud examiner delves deep into a company's finances, looking for the source of anything that seems inconsistent or suspicious. Both can serve as expert witnesses who help establish the value of a business or testify to the existence of fraud.

The goal for both forensic accountants and fraud examiners is to make sure the other side of the case is being completely truthful about its income and accounting practices. As you might imagine, this is a frequent concern in divorces involving a spouse who’s part of a small or closely held business, which may need to be properly valued for the divorce. The company may also need to be investigated when the owning spouse is believed to be hiding assets. However, this concern also comes up in business disputes, such as breach of fiduciary duty lawsuits. When minority shareholders believe the majority is withholding important financial information, using a forensic accountant or fraud examiner may be the most reliable way to discover and prove the truth.

This practice is relatively recent but growing; a simple Web search turns up many accountants and examiners who regularly serve as expert witnesses. Two legal journals serving our Midwestern neighbors, The Wisconsin Law Journal and Michigan Lawyers Weekly, offer online articles on the subject for lawyers who want to learn more.

Are you a consumer with questions or concerns related to potential fraud and do not know what government agency to contact? The Chicago Federal Reserve Bank provides a web page that allows you to link to government agencies that may help you. The web page has links to federal and state banking agencies, federal and state securities agencies, and state insurance agencies located in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin. You can also link to various useful financial , insurance, and banking tools, and to lists of financial services regulators, and consumer complaint filing information. Click here to link to the Chicago Federal Reserve Fraud web page.

If you need legal assistance in pursuing a civil lawsuit because government regulators cannot help you in recovering money lost due to fraud, our private sector lawyers can assist you by clicking here to contact us.

In a business fraud lawsuit pitting a bank against its security vendor, the Illinois Appellate Court for the 1st District ruled May 1 that an attachment order must be voided under the Illinois Attachment Act if plaintiffs fail to file an attachment bond beforehand. In ABN Amro Services Company, Inc. v. Navarrete Industries, Inc., No. 1-07-0089 (Ill. App. 2008), the appeals court voided such an order and remanded it to the trial court.

The case arose from alleged fraud by INS, which provided security for multiple Chicago-area La Salle Bank branches. A fraud investigator discovered that Armando Navarrete of INS was fraudulently overbilling the banks by an alleged $15.9 million, then paying kickbacks to the banks’ vice president for security, George Konjuch. The bank filed a lawsuit in September of 2006 against INS, Konjuch, Navarrete and another INS employee, alleging fraud, civil conspiracy and constructive trust, plus breach of fiduciary duty against Konjuch. (Konjuch and Navarrete have since been indicted by a federal grand jury for the scheme.)

At the same time, plaintiffs asked for a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction and an order of statutory prejudgment attachment, all of which were attempts to keep the alleged conspirators from absconding with the money. Upon receiving notice of these filings, defendants immediately filed motions to void the restraining order and the prejudgment attachment. After hearings, the trial court dissolved the restraining order and denied the preliminary injunction, but declined to vacate the attachment order. Both sides appealed.

On appeal, the First District considered only Konjuch’s motion to vacate the attachment order. Using the plain language of the Illinois Attachment Act, the court concluded that plaintiffs are absolutely required to file a bond before they may be granted an attachment order:

Unfortunately, the result of declaring the order void results in a waste of resources in this case. While plaintiffs clearly attempted to comply with the statute, they failed to do so. This issue could not be resolved by simple amendment because of the absolute mandatory command of the statute, therefore the mootness and aider by verdict doctrines do not apply. The order is simply void. A liberal construction of the Act cannot cure this defect and the order must be dismissed.

Thus, the three-judge majority reversed and remanded the case to the Circuit Court of Cook County.

Our firm obtained a favorable verdict in a consumer fraud case with Terrill v. Oakbrook Hilton Suites & Garden Inn 788 NE2d 789 (2nd Dist 2003). In that case, our client, Cathy Terrill, was overcharged for a hotel room; her bill contained a charge for “taxes” that included an undisclosed non-tax charge for security services. This case was part of a set of class actions in Du Page County from 2000 to 2007 (Oakbrook Terrance Hotel Overcharge Class Actions), all of which alleged that hotels misled and overcharged their customers by including non-tax charges as “taxes” on their bills.

In Terrill, the Oakbrook Terrace Hilton moved for summary judgment at the trial court, claiming the Hotel Operators Occupation Tax Act (35 ILCS 145/3(f)) and Illinois Supreme Court precedent barred Terrill’s suit. The trial judge denied that motion and the hotel appealed. It claimed that because the security fees paid for extra security from Oakbrook Terrace law enforcement -- a local government entity with the power to collect taxes -- it had already paid the extra money to the state Department of Revenue and could not be sued.

The Illinois Second District Court of Appeal rejected that argument, calling it “untenable at best”:

It is clear, given the facts of this case, that defendant misapprehends the concept of accountability. Because defendant remitted the 2% service fee to Oakbrook Terrace instead of the Department, defendant cannot use the Act or case law to shield itself from direct liability. Unjust enrichment principles are based on the idea that no one ought to enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another.

Thus, Terrill’s claim was not barred and the suit was allowed to proceed. The case went back to the appellate court in a later, unpublished decision, in which the court struck Hilton's response brief and affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment and award to the Class of 100% of the tax overcharges plus prejudgment interest and attorneys fees and costs. Class members ultimately received a check in the mail for 98% of the over charge. Our firm is proud of our leadership role in this case and others where consumers and businesses have recouped tax and billing overcharges billing fraud class actions, as well as our role in setting precedent with published cases. We have experience handling many types of fraud and business fraud cases and have litigated fraud cases in Chicago, and throughout the country. If you are a victim of fraud, consumer fraud or deceptive billing practices you can contact one of our experienced fraud attorneys by clicking here.

Since the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act took full effect in 2006, businesses have seen a rapid growth in class-action lawsuits over credit card numbers printed on receipts. FACTA, which was intended to help prevent identity theft, requires businesses that accept credit cards to hide all but the last five digits of the card number on receipts, and not to print the expiration date at all.

Businesses that failed to meet those requirements in time were hit with hundreds of class actions within the first year of the law’s effective date in December of 2006. Restaurants, at which consumers regularly and normally leave credit card receipts, have been an especially frequent defendant. The actions allege that businesses in violation of FACTA are willfully disregarding the law because they had several years to comply, and ask for up to $1,000 for each violation. Federal appeals courts split on the matter of whether a business’s unintentional failure to comply with FACTA was “willful,” but the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 2007’s Geico v. Edo, 551 U.S. __ (2007), an appeal from the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, that a willful violation may be “reckless disregard” for the law as well as a knowing or intentional violation.

Senator Charles Schumer of New York introduced legislation on May 6, 2008 that would end liability for businesses that print expiration dates but comply with the requirement to shorten credit card numbers. The proposed Credit and Debit Card Receipt Clarification Act of 2008 would declare any business that printed the expiration date but not the entire number to be “not in willful noncompliance” with FACTA. It would apply to any unresolved lawsuit, regardless of when that lawsuit was filed.

As billing fraud class action attorneys, we were pleased to see that a Pennsylvania federal district court recently certified a class in a lawsuit alleging three health clubs in Pennsylvania charged excessive startup fees. In Allen v. Holiday Universal, the court certified a class of all plaintiffs who joined a Bally Total Fitness in Pennsylvania (which includes Holiday Universal, Inc. and Scandinavian Health Spa gyms) on or after December 7, 1998 and paid more than $100 in startup costs.

In a 63-page Memorandum of Order, U.S. District Judge Gene Pratter of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania rejected several arguments raised by the defense that the class should not be certified. Among those arguments were:
* Club members with different contracts were too different to form a class.
* Members who did not object to their contracts had waived their class membership.
* Some members of the proposed class suffered no injury.

The suit seeks to recover initiation fees it alleges are excessive under Pennsylvania’s Health Club Act and its Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. (Despite the state-law claims, the case was removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act.) The suit also claimed declaratory relief, for which certification was also granted. Certification for a claim for unjust enrichment was denied, said the judge, “because of the individual nature of those claims with respect to both damages and liability.”

Illegal debt collection practices exposed:

The Federal Trade Commission's ("FTC") website summarizes illegal debt collection practices. Below is the summary from the site:

Fair Debt Collection If you use credit cards, owe money on a personal loan, or are paying on a home mortgage, you are a "debtor." If you fall behind in repaying your creditors, or an error is made on your accounts, you may be contacted by a "debt collector."

You should know that in either situation, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act requires that debt collectors treat you fairly and prohibits certain methods of debt collection. Of course, the law does not erase any legitimate debt you owe.

What debts are covered?
Personal, family, and household debts are covered under the Act. This includes money owed for the purchase of an automobile, for medical care, or for charge accounts.

Who is a debt collector?
A debt collector is any person who regularly collects debts owed to others. This includes attorneys who collect debts on a regular basis.

How may a debt collector contact you?
A collector may contact you in person, by mail, telephone, telegram, or fax. However, a debt collector may not contact you at inconvenient times or places, such as before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m., unless you agree. A debt collector also may not contact you at work if the collector knows that your employer disapproves of such contacts.

Can you stop a debt collector from contacting you?
You can stop a debt collector from contacting you by writing a letter to the collector telling them to stop. Once the collector receives your letter, they may not contact you again except to say there will be no further contact or to notify you that the debt collector or the creditor intends to take some specific action. Please note, however, that sending such a letter to a collector does not make the debt go away if you actually owe it. You could still be sued by the debt collector or your original creditor.

May a debt collector contact anyone else about your debt?
If you have an attorney, the debt collector must contact the attorney, rather than you. If you do not have an attorney, a collector may contact other people, but only to find out where you live, what your phone number is, and where you work. Collectors usually are prohibited from contacting such third parties more than once. In most cases, the collector may not tell anyone other than you and your attorney that you owe money.

What must the debt collector tell you about the debt?
Within five days after you are first contacted, the collector must send you a written notice telling you the amount of money you owe; the name of the creditor to whom you owe the money; and what action to take if you believe you do not owe the money.

May a debt collector continue to contact you if you believe you do not owe money?
A collector may not contact you if, within 30 days after you receive the written notice, you send the collection agency a letter stating you do not owe money. However, a collector can renew collection activities if you are sent proof of the debt, such as a copy of a bill for the amount owed.

What types of debt collection practices are prohibited?
Harassment. Debt collectors may not harass, oppress, or abuse you or any third parties they contact. For example, debt collectors may not:

use threats of violence or harm;
publish a list of consumers who refuse to pay their debts (except to a credit bureau);
use obscene or profane language; or repeatedly use the telephone to annoy someone.
False statements. Debt collectors may not use any false or misleading statements when collecting a debt. For example, debt collectors may not:

falsely imply that they are attorneys or government representatives;
falsely imply that you have committed a crime;
falsely represent that they operate or work for a credit bureau;
misrepresent the amount of your debt;
indicate that papers being sent to you are legal forms when they are not; or
indicate that papers being sent to you are not legal forms when they are.
Debt collectors also may not state that:
you will be arrested if you do not pay your debt;
they will seize, garnish, attach, or sell your property or wages, unless the collection agency or creditor intends to do so, and it is legal to do so; or
actions, such as a lawsuit, will be taken against you, when such action legally may not be taken, or when they do not intend to take such action.
Debt collectors may not:
give false credit information about you to anyone, including a credit bureau;
send you anything that looks like an official document from a court or government agency when it is not; or
use a false name.
Unfair practices. Debt collectors may not engage in unfair practices when they try to collect a debt. For example, collectors may not:

collect any amount greater than your debt, unless your state law permits such a charge;
deposit a post-dated check prematurely;
use deception to make you accept collect calls or pay for telegrams;
take or threaten to take your property unless this can be done legally; or
contact you by postcard.
What control do you have over payment of debts?
If you owe more than one debt, any payment you make must be applied to the debt you indicate. A debt collector may not apply a payment to any debt you believe you do not owe.

What can you do if you believe a debt collector violated the law?
You have the right to sue a collector in a state or federal court within one year from the date the law was violated. If you win, you may recover money for the damages you suffered plus an additional amount up to $1,000. Court costs and attorney' s fees also can be recovered. A group of people also may sue a debt collector and recover money for damages up to $500,000, or one percent of the collector' s net worth, whichever is less.

Here is the link to the FTC's site.

By contacting an experienced debt collection abuse prevention lawyer at www.NationwideConsumerRights.com you can put a stop to the evil of illegal debt collection practices and recover damages under the FDCPA if you have a valid claim. Contact us by clicking here.