Chicago Business Litigation Lawyer Blog

Below is a video by a forensic accountant and certified fraud examiner discussing common forms of fraud that cause losses to businesses. The video provides solutions to protecting your business from fraud.

DiTommaso-Lubin's Chicago business trial lawyers have more than two and half decades of experience helping business clients on unraveling complex business fraud and breach of fiduciary duty cases. We work with skilled forensic accountants and certified fraud examiners to help recover monies missappropriated from our clients. Our Chicago business, commercial, and class-action litigation lawyers represent individuals, family businesses and enterprises of all sizes in a variety of legal disputes, including disputes among partners and shareholders as well as lawsuits between businesses and and consumer rights, auto fraud, and wage claim individual and class action cases. In every case, our goal is to resolve disputes as quickly and sucessfully as possible, helping business clients protect their investements and get back to business as usual. From offices in Oak Brook, near Wheaton, Naperville, Evanston, and Chicago, we serve clients throughout Illinois and the Midwest.

If you’re facing a business or class-action lawsuit, or the possibility of one, and you’d like to discuss how the experienced Illinois business dispute attorneys at DiTommaso-Lubin can help, we would like to hear from you. To set up a consultation with one of our Chicago, Wheaton, Elmhurst, Geneva, Aurora, Elgin, Rockford or Naperville business trial attorneys and class action and consumer trial lawyers, please call us toll-free at 1-877-990-4990 or contact us through the Internet.

Our Chicago trade secrets litigation lawyers were interested to see a recent case pitting a school bus company in Cook County against competitors and former employees. Alpha School Bus Company, Inc. v. Wagner, No. 1-06-3427 (Ill. 1st May 15, 2009). Alpha is owned by Cook-Illinois Corporation (collectively “Alpha”), which contracts to provide busing to school districts for special education students. Defendant Michael Wagner was an officer of Alpha and non-appealing defendant Leroy Meister was a managing employee. Barbara Ann Hackel owned Southwest Transit and Wagner owned Southwest Transit Leasing LLC, which leased buses to Southwest. Wagner and Meister left Alpha to join Southwest in 2003.

Alpha alleges that defendants, while employed at Alpha, conspired to secure a contract for Southwest by using their positions to make sure Southwest had a lower bid. Alpha also alleges that in forming Southwest, defendants conspired to drive Alpha out of business, sabotaged it, stole trade secrets and lured away employees. They allegedly hid their involvement in Southwest, solicited Alpha’s customers, falsified time sheets for Meister and other employees and had employees of Alpha stay to sabotage the company. Alpha sued for misappropriation of trade secrets, civil conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, antitrust violations and an injunction.

After Alpha filed several amended complaints, defendants moved to dismiss all of these claims, which the trial court granted with prejudice on all counts except the claim for misappropriation of trade secrets. The trial court found that all of the counts were based on the alleged theft of trade secrets and were therefore preempted by the Illinois Trade Secrets Act. Similarly, several other counts alleging conspiracy were preempted by the Antitrust Act. The remaining count was the claim for misappropriation of trade secrets, which the court dismissed without prejudice because it did not have enough information to state a cause of action. After an amended complaint that didn’t meet legal standards, the court dismissed that count with prejudice as well. The instant appeal followed.

The appeals court started by noting that Alpha did not submit a record of the trial, as required, so it could only consider the issues of law. It then took up the issue of whether the Antitrust and Trade Secrets Act preempt Alpha’s breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, trade secrets and antitrust claims. Alpha claims that Wagner used his position to prepare a lower bid for Southwest, which indeed would be a breach of fiduciary duty under caselaw. The court wrote that this would have involved the misappropriation of trade secrets, but does not depend on it. Thus, the Trade Secrets Act doesn’t preempt the breach of fiduciary duty claim and the trial court erred.

Similarly, the claim that Hackel induced Wagner to breach his fiduciary duty should not have been dismissed, the court wrote, because most of the allegations supporting it did not depend on misappropriation of trade secrets. And Cook-Illinois may sue Wagner for breach of fiduciary duty because Alpha properly asserted that Wagner was an officer of Cook-Illinois when he allegedly converted some of its trade secrets for use by Southwest. The First reversed the trial court on those three claims.

However, it upheld the trial court on all of the other claims. In many cases, the court wrote that the claims failed as a matter of law because of confusions between defendants as individuals and the corporations for whom they were acting as agents, or because of procedural errors. Furthermore, most of the trade secrets Alpha alleged were misappropriated failed to meet the definition of a trade secret under Illinois law: “Plaintiffs’ attempt to claim as a trade secret their “customer list,” i.e., the names of the school districts, is patently false because this information is glaringly nonsecret.” Finally, the court affirmed on the dismissal of the final complaint with prejudice, noting that the record shows no attempt by Alpha to amend its complaint again before the dismissal and appeal. Thus, the trial court was mostly affirmed and partly reversed.

Continue reading "Illinois Trade Secrets Act Does Not Preempt Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims, First District Rules" »

In a proposed class action insurance fraud lawsuit, the Illinois First District Court of Appeal has ruled that a former client may sue an insurance broker for inflating the cost of its insurance policies with “kickbacks.” DOD Technologies v. Mesirow Insurance Services Inc., No. 1-06-3300 (Ill. 1st Feb. 14, 2008). Plaintiff DOD Technologies sued Mesirow Insurance Services Inc., its insurance broker, after learning that Mesirow took contingency fees from insurance companies for steering clients toward those companies.

In its complaint, DOD said it provided confidential information to Mesirow, expecting the broker to get DOD the best price it could for insurance. But in addition to its commission from DOD, Mesirow also received “contingent commissions” from insurance companies, which were payments based on the amount of business it directed to the insurer, the number of renewals and how many losses the insurer had suffered from those clients. The payments were not disclosed to customers, DOD alleged, and created a conflict of interests for Mesirow. They also violated a part of the Illinois Insurance Code that require insurance brokers to disclose fees not directly related to premiums.

DOD sued Mesirow for breach of fiduciary duty, consumer fraud, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment and accounting. The complaint alleged that Mesirow steered customers to insurers who paid kickbacks, regardless of whether those insurers offered the best price, inflating the cost of insurance. The trial court dismissed three of DOD’s counts because the Insurance Code precludes breach of fiduciary duty claims and two others because it found no proof that DOD suffered damages or relied on the fraudulent concealment. DOD appealed.

The First District started with the breach of fiduciary duty count, which Mesirow alleged was precluded by provisions of the Insurance Code barring most breach of fiduciary duty claims. The exception written into the law is when the insurance producer is accused of “the wrongful retention or misappropriation... of any money that was received as premiums, as a premium deposit, or as payment of a claim.” DOD contended that its complaint falls within that exception, while Mesirow argued that it refers only to diverting premium payments for wrongful ends. The appeals court sided with DOD, holding that directing a client to an insurance policy not in its best interests in exchange for undisclosed kickbacks falls under the definition of misappropriation of premiums.

Having reversed the trial court on the counts for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and accounting, the First District next turned to the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act claim. DOD alleged that it relied on Mesirow’s faulty information and thus paid excessive insurance premiums. However, the court noted, the Consumer Fraud Act requires that the plaintiff show actual damages. The record did not show that DOD would have done much differently if it had known of Mesirow’s alleged practices, the court wrote. Thus, the dismissal of the consumer fraud claim was affirmed.

Similarly, the court affirmed the dismissal of the fraudulent concealment complaint because DOD failed to show that it suffered actual damages. Finally, the court disposed of technical arguments raised by the plaintiff over alleged misconduct during discovery and in filings. In the end, the First District affirmed the dismissal of the Consumer Fraud Act and fraudulent concealment complaints, but reversed and remanded the other complaints for trial.

The consumer rights law firm of DiTommaso-Lubin handles consumer fraud complaints such as this one, both as individual actions and as national or Illinois class action lawsuits representing a large group of consumers with similar complaints. Our Chicago based insurance fraud attorneys and consumer lawyers help clients throughout the United States against insurance companies and others that inflated their premiums, failed to pay legitimate claims or otherwise took advantage of their relative lack of power. From offices near Wheaton, Ill., and Chicago, DiTommaso-Lubin represents clients throughout the Midwest and the United States. If you believe your insurance company has violated its own contract and you’re ready to fight back, please contact DiTommaso-Lubin online or call us toll-free at 1-877-990-4990.

A trial court was correct to find for defendants in a breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud lawsuit, the First District Court of Appeal ruled March 20. In Prodromos v. Everin Securities Inc., No. 1-06-3685 (1st. Dist. March 20, 2009), plaintiff John Prodromos sued Everin Securities, Inc., its predecessor company, Daniel Westrope and Dennis Klaeser over an allegedly stolen opportunity.

Prodromos was a former president and CEO of Howard Savings Bank, a family business. He was fired by his sister in 1994 after he was fined by the FDIC for failing to waive a fee and for violations of state law. In 1998, he wanted to purchase Home Federal Bank, which was looking for an investor, but needed help. He approached his broker at Everin, who connected him to Westrope, an investment banker there. After a meeting attended by all three, Westrope agreed to contact shareholders at Home Federal about voting for Prodromos in a proxy vote, but no agreement was signed and no fees were paid.At the time, Westrope had already been hired away from Everin by State Financial Services Corporation, something he did not disclose to Prodromos.

After Prodromos submitted some follow-up information to Westrope, the latter man was not responsive to messages from Prodromos. About a month after the meeting, Westrope moved to State Financial. His replacement at Everin, Klaeser, told Prodromos that Everin would not support his purchase attempt because it would be bad for the firm’s investment banking business. Prodromos met with several other banks and an attorney, but did not follow up with most. He did strike a deal for financing through Success Bank, but that deal fell through when one of the Success officials involved died suddenly. His efforts ended. A few months later, State Financial acquired Home Federal and installed Westrope as CEO and president of the bank.

Prodromos sued Everin, its predecessor, Westrope and Klaeser for breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud. The defendants were granted partial summary judgment, but Prodromos appealed and the First District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded that decision. On remand, Prodromos requested and did not receive a jury trial because the law does not require one for breach of fiduciary duty claims. After Prodromos presented his case at a bench trial, the court granted defendants’ motion for a directed finding. Prodromos now appeals both that decision and the decision to deny him a jury trial.

The First District Court of Appeal affirmed those decisions. It first considered the motion for a directed judgment, which Prodromos argued should not have been granted without requiring the defendants to prove that the State Financial-Home Federal transaction was fair and equitable. The court disagreed, noting that nothing in its first decision (Prodromos I) or Illinois caselaw requires that a court consider every element of a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court did not find that the defendants’ conduct proximately caused Prodromos to lose the opportunity to buy Home Federal, they wrote, and that was enough to defeat the breach of fiduciary duty claim.

Furthermore, the court wrote, Prodromos did not make his case because he was unable to show that he would have been able to close the deal if it weren’t for the defendants’ actions. And undisputed testimony shows that he did not enter into an agreement with Westrope, so he was free to pursue the acquisition opportunity elsewhere. He did not, despite evidence that the time to make such a deal was running out.

The court then took up the jury trial issue. Under Illinois law, plaintiffs are entitled to a jury trial if that right existed in English common law at the time the Illinois Constitution was written. Breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud are both equitable claims, the First District pointed out -- and equitable claims were not tried with the right to a jury. None of the caselaw Prodromos cited effectively contradicted the Illinois Supreme Court’s holding on that subject, the court said. Thus, the trial court was correct to deny Prodromos a right to a jury trial, and both rulings were affirmed.

The experienced business litigation attorneys at DiTommaso-Lubin have substantial experience on both plaintiff and defense sides of breach of fiduciary duty, stolen corporate opportunity, corporate freeze out and squeeze out cases and partnership and shareholder disputes involving closely held businesses or family businesses. Our Chicago and Oak Brook business trial attorneys and commercial litigation lawyers handle all types of business and commercial disputes, including stolen corporate opportunities, breach of contract and business fraud litigation. From offices in Chicago and Oak Brook, Illinois, our business litigation lawyers represent clients throughout the state of Illinois and the Midwest, in state and federal courts. To learn more about our experience and your own legal options, please contact DiTommaso-Lubin online or call us toll-free at 1-877-990-4990.

A trial court was correct to find a breach of fiduciary duty in a real estate partnership, the First District Court of Appeal ruled March 27. In 1515 North Wells LP v. 1513 North Wells LLC, No. 1-07-1881 (Ill. 1st. Dist. March 27, 2009), the appeals court also upheld the lower court’s rulings that one partner had breached his contract and that denied him a chance to amend his complaint to pierce the corporate veil.

The case grows out of a real estate development deal struck in 1997. Thomas Bracken, Mark Sutherland, Alex Pearsall and an uninvolved fourth partner formed 1515 North Wells LP, a limited partnership, to develop a condominium with retail space. Sutherland and Pearsall then created SP Development Corporation to serve as the general partner of 1515 North Wells LP. Bracken separately created 1513 North Wells LLC to own space in the building that was to be a health club. Bracken borrowed $250,000 to pay for his part of the property, and signed a note saying he agreed to pay it back no later than 15 days after receiving a financial statement from 1515 North Wells. He further agreed to pay it even if there was a dispute, then wait for a refund later.

To begin development, SP, the general partner, solicited bids for a general contractor. It hired yet another Sutherland and Pearsall company, Sutherland and Pearsall Development, even though its bid was the only one received that failed to state a maximum price for the project. The same general contractor, not 1515 North Wells, later received the profits from condominium upgrades.

In 2001, Bracken received his financial statement but did not pay back the loan, claiming the accounting was inadequate. The next year, 1515 North Wells sued him for breach of contract. Bracken countersued SP, and Sutherland and Pearsall as individuals, for breach of fiduciary duty, citing the choice of their own company as general contractor. SP was granted summary judgment on Bracken’s breach of contract issue, and the individuals were granted summary judgment on breach of fiduciary duty as to them personally. Bracken was unsuccessful in his own request for summary judgment, finding that there were genuine issues of material fact to address at trial.

The court also denied Bracken leave to amend his complaint to pierce the corporate veil and find Sutherland and Pearsall personally liable for the alleged breach of fiduciary duty. Bracken’s request came in 2005, seven weeks before trial and after the issue had been raised in previous filings. However, the judge in the case retired, delaying trial. At a bench trial in December of 2005, the court found for Bracken on the breach of fiduciary duty claim. Bracken then petitioned for reconsideration of the summary judgment against him and of the denial of leave to amend his petition, in light of the court’s finding. The new judge did not change the first judge’s rulings, and in fact, amended the judgment against Bracken to include more interest and attorney fees.

Everybody appealed to the First District. On appeal, Bracken argued that the trial court erred in finding him liable for breach of contract in repayment of the loan, and in not allowing him to amend his complaint to include a request to pierce the corporate veil. SP argued that the trial court should not have found a breach of fiduciary duty because of language in the partnership agreement for 1515 North Wells.

The First District started its analysis by quickly affirming the trial court’s rulings against Bracken. It was undisputed that Bracken was contractually obligated to pay the money back, the court said, and it was undisputed that he did not repay it. Thus, summary judgment on the breach of contract issue was entirely appropriate.

It next looked at Bracken’s claim for amending his case to include a count for piercing the corporate veil. Bracken argued that he had repeatedly made that request but had not been allowed, starting at least 16 months before trial. However, the court found no evidence in the record that Bracken had done so. It further concluded that the motion he did make, seven weeks before trial, was not timely. Bracken did not make his request until nearly three years after the case was filed, the court reasoned, and had no way of knowing that the late-September trial would be postponed further. In fact, allowing an amended complaint at that late date would have been prejudicial, the First District wrote.

Finally, the appeals court dismissed SP’s argument that the trial court erred in finding it breached its fiduciary duty. SP relied on language in the partnership agreement providing that partners may engage in whichever activities they choose without financial obligation to the partnership. However, the appeals court said, the Illinois Uniform Partnership Act specifies that a partnership agreement may never eliminate or reduce a partner’s fiduciary duties. Furthermore, there was ample evidence at trial that SP breached its fiduciary duty, including the “cost plus” contract with the contractor and the fact that it did not route condo sales profits back to the partnership. Thus, the First District upheld the trial court’s decisions on all counts.

Based in Chicago and near Naperville, Ill., DiTommaso-Lubin handles partnership and shareholder, and family business disputes including such disputes involving real-esate partnerships, and other business ventures for businesses, partnerships and corporations of all sizes, from closely held family businesses to larger enterprises. Our Chicago and Oak Brook commercial litigation attorneys represent businesses in state and federal courts, and alternative dispute resolution, throughout Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. DiTommaso-Lubin's goal is to minimize our clients’ financial risk and avoid disruptions to their business as much as possible while still protecting their legal rights. If your business, corporation or partnership is involved in an Illinois business lawsuit and you would like to learn more about how we can help, contact DiTommaso-Lubin today for a free consultation.

In a partnership dispute and breach of fiduciary duty claim, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled that an attorney may sue his former firm, but not his former partners. In Kehoe v. Harrold, Wildman, Allen & Dixon, No. 1-07-0435 (Ill. 1st Dec. 23, 2008), Robert Kehoe, a former partner in the firm, sued after partners voted to change him from equity partner to nonequity partner. That is, they voted to end his part ownership of the firm and make him a salaried employee.

In 1995, after Kehoe had been a partner in Harrold Wildman for sixteen years, the firm renegotiated its financing with its bank, a deal that required every equity partner to execute a personal guaranty acceptable to the bank. Kehoe objected to the proposed guaranty and was unable to find a compromise, despite offers to draft his own version. The bank allowed the firm to take out its loan anyway. Later, the firm amended its loan agreement with the bank to eliminate the guaranty requirement but specify that partners without a guaranty are personally liable for the full amount of the debt. A few months later, partner Eisel approached Kehoe about his lack of a guaranty, and Kehoe replied that the amendment made it unnecessary.

The firm's management committee then met and adopted a resolution allowing a two-thirds vote of partners to change the status of any partner who failed to execute a guaranty. Kehoe was present and objected, and rebuffed later advice to sign the guaranty. The partners later voted to remove his equity status per the resolution. Over the next two days, Kehoe moved his clients to a law firm of his own; he also requested his equity be paid out and was denied. He sued individual partners, claiming they breached their fiduciary duty by advocating the resolution, and the firm as a whole for breaching their obligation to pay his equity share.

At trial, the case turned on the definition of "involuntary withdrawal" in the firm's partnership agreement; Kehoe was only entitled to equity payment if he was involuntarily withdrawn. The jury decided that he was, finding both the firm and certain partners in breach. All of the defendants appealed, claiming they were entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict based on the fiduciary duty claim. The partners also appealed, arguing that they were entitled to a new trial because the manifest weight of the evidence favored them and because of errors by the court.

The appeals court started by examining the dispute over whether the partnership agreement was ambiguous in its definition of "involuntary withdrawal," a basis for both of Kehoe's successful claims. The appeals court agreed with the trial judge that it was, and allowed the jury's decision based on that finding, to hold the firm liable for failing to pay Kehoe's separation benefits, to stand. It next turned to the decision against individual partners, which held them personally liable for failing to pay Kehoe. The language of the partnership agreement mentioned only the firm's obligation to pay, but Kehoe argued that partners should be individually liable based on obligations of partners under Illinois partnership law.

The judges disagreed, pointing out that Kehoe did not use a partnership cause of action. A plain reading of the partnership agreement did not support him, they said, and he could not pick and choose which language in the contract applied. Thus, the partner defendants were entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict on breach of contract. Kehoe also alleged that partner defendants had breached their fiduciary duty to him by misinforming the partnership before the vote. Again, the appeals judges disagreed: "The allegations set forth by the plaintiff do not remotely come close to the [defendants'] fundamental duty." The partners did not deprive the partnership of profits, the court said, as required to find a breach of fiduciary duty. Thus, the First reversed the lower court's decision as to the partner defendants and upheld it as to the firm itself.

The business litigation law firm of DiTommaso-Lubin specializes in this type of partnership dispute, as well as disputes involving closely held businesses, franchise businesses and corporate shareholders. Based in Oak Brook and Chicago, we represent businesses and individuals throughout Illinois as well as in Wisconsin and Indiana. If you have a business-related dispute, we can help. Please contact us online for a confidential consultation.

In a breach of contract and Illinois Wage Payment Act case, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled that a company and its former executive must have a trial to determine whether it breached the executive’s employment contract. Covinsky v. Hannah Marine Corporation, No. 1-08-0695 (Ill. 1st. Feb. 17, 2009). At issue in the case is a severance clause in Jeffrey Covinsky’s employment contract with Hannah Marine Corp., for which he served as president, CEO and CFO from 1998 to 2006.

Covinsky’s contract specified that he was entitled to a “golden parachute” of 18 months’ salary if there is “...a change in the present ownership which results in the termination of the Employee's employment...” This agreement was executed in 2004, when Hannah Marine was jointly owned by three people, including Donald Hannah. Hannah sued the other shareholders in 2005 for financial mismanagement, and ended up buying out the other two shareholders. Covinsky told Hannah in 2005 that he assumed Hannah would want to let him go after the change; in 2006, Covinsky told Hannah he did not intend to resign and wanted to finish the contract, which was set to expire in 2006.

A month later, when the takeover was final, Hannah told Covinsky that he was terminated and that Hannah “accepted” Covinsky’s resignation. Covinsky protested that he never resigned, but was not paid the severance. He sued Hannah Marine and Donald Hannah for breach of the employment contract and violating the Illinois Wage Payment Act. Hannah countersued Covinsky for breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court granted summary judgment to Covinsky on both counts as to Hannah Marine, but dismissed the Wage Act claim against Hannah personally. It also dismissed the company’s counterclaim. Both sides appealed, resulting in the consolidated instant appeal.

On appeal, the First District narrowed the issue to the meaning of the word “termination” in the golden parachute clause, which says in part that Covinsky would be entitled to the severance pay if “a change in the present ownership... results in the termination of the Employee’s employment.” Hannah Marine argued that this means just a firing; Covinsky argued that it means either a firing or a resignation. The appeals court found that the dictionary definition could mean either kind of termination, but context makes it clear that the clause refers to an involuntary termination. In fact, the court wrote, to interpret the clause otherwise would “make[] no sense”:

If a paragraph 7(g) "termination" encompasses a voluntary resignation, the employee has no incentive to continue in his position and to make the transition to the new owner/management because he knows, if he resigns upon the transition, he will receive a substantial payout. He will be rewarded for not doing his job.

For that reason, the court said, the issue of whether Covinsky was fired or quit -- an issue the trial court had declined to address, believing the clause applied either way -- was dispositive of the case. This is a genuine issue of material fact that is inappropriate for summary judgment, the court wrote. Thus, the trial court’s breach of contract decision was reversed and remanded for further proceedings on the subject. For the same reasons, the appeals court also send the Wage Payment Act claims against both Hannah Marine and Donald Hannah back to trial -- the law would apply, it said, but only if Covinsky was fired. The judges noted that the trial court found that Hannah didn’t meet the definition of an employer, but nonetheless, it was free to revisit the issue on remand.

Finally, the court addressed Hannah’s appeal of the trial court’s decision to dismiss its breach of fiduciary duty claim against Covinsky. Like the trial court, the appeals court said Hannah failed to state a sufficient claim because the deal that formed the basis of its claim wasn’t necessarily a bad one.

DiTommaso-Lubin’s Chicago breach of contract litigation lawyers and business trial attorneys handle cases of alleged breach of employment contracts and all other types of business contracts, including franchise agreements, purchase and sale contracts, restrictive covenants and non-compete agreements. Our firm serves businesses and individuals acting as both plaintiffs and defendants. With offices in Oakbrook Terrace, near Oak Brook, Naperville, Wheaton, Ill., and Chicago, we help clients throughout Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana. Our law firm and its Chicago commercial trial attorneys have handled a wide variety of business trials and litigation. To learn more about how we can help you, you can contact us online or call us at 1-877-990-4990.

A small business may not sue a bank for allowing a minority shareholder to embezzle, the Illinois Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. In Time Savers, Inc. v. LaSalle Bank, N.A., 02-06-0198 (Feb. 28, 2007), the company had sued its bank for breach of contract, common-law fraud, conspiracy to defraud, aiding and abetting and violating the Illinois Fiduciary Obligations Act.

The case stems from bad loans taken out by the minority shareholder in construction and maintenance equipment supplier Time Savers (TSI), Stephen Harrison. He owned 20% of the company and shareholder Lawrence Kozlicki owned the remaining 80%. Harrison also owned another business, RDSJH Equipment Venture, that does the same kind of equipment supply business. Kozlicki has no ownership interest in RDSJH, but the two companies did business together. Between 1997 and 2001, Harrison, through TSI, refinanced existing loans and took out new ones with LaSalle Bank seven times. With these loans, Harrison financed new equipment purchases for RDSJH; the equipment was then rented to TSI, allowing RDSJH to enrich itself at TSI's expense.

Kozlicki and TSI contended that LaSalle suspected or knew that the loans were for Harrison's personal benefit, but failed to alert Kozlicki or investigate further. TSI pointed to various documents and communications, as well as the fact that some funds were deposited into an RDSJH account. The complaint at issue in this appeal is the third amended complaint by TSI; the company voluntarily dismissed the original complaint and the DuPage County trial court dismissed the first, second and third amended complaints at LaSalle's request. (The bank also moved for sanctions after the third amended complaint was dismissed.) The final dismissal is the subject of this appeal.

In its analysis, the Second District sided with the trial court. Most importantly, it found that TSI had failed to show that LaSalle or its employees had actual knowledge of Harrison's embezzlement. Documents cited did not demonstrate Harrison's wrongdoing, and because the bank knew Harrison was a shareholder in both TSI and RDSJH and the two companies did business together, there was no reason that the bank should have suspected anything unusual from the entanglement of the companies' finances. For the same reasons, the court said, the bank knew nothing that would have obligated it to investigate the situation further, and the plaintiff could not show that it deliberately failed to investigate.

Thus, the charges of conspiracy, aiding and abetting and violation of the Fiduciary Obligations Act failed. The common-law fraud count failed, wrote the court, because TSI failed to cite specific examples of false representations made by LaSalle. Thus, the appeals court upheld the trial court's dismissal of TSI's complaint with prejudice.

The Chicago business trial attorneys and commercial litigation lawyers at DiTommaso-Lubin represent businesses and individuals in Chicago and throughout the Midwest who are seeking to recoup the costs of fraud, embezzlement and other financial crimes. To learn more about our firm and see our favorable results in past cases, please visit our Web site.

New guidelines for fighting fraud have just been released by three leading professional organizations. "Managing the Business Risk of Fraud: A Practical Guide" is sponsored by the ACFE, The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). Principles for establishing effective fraud risk management, regardless of the type or size of an organization, are outlined in the guide.

Download "Managing the Business Risk of Fraud"

Our commercial litgation attorneys work closely with auditors, accountants, forensic accountants and certified fraud examiners to determine the extent of the damages your business has suffered due to fraud. We bring suit to recover the lost funds. Our experienced business and commercial litigation attorneys with offices in or near Naperville, Wheaton, Oak Brook and Chicago have helped businesses and individuals recover substantial losses in individual or class action lawsuits arising from business fraud by vendors, employees and others. To review a summary of the business and fraud lawsuits we have handled click here. To contact us for a free consultation about business fraud or other business litigation issues fill out the form on the left side of this blog or click here.

Our Chicago, Naperville, Wheaton and Oak Brook business trial lawyers won an important procedural victory in a business dispute involving a closely held business. In short, we were able to convince an Illinois trial court that an attorney's appearance should be stricken after being added to a case, we argued, because it appeared the new attorney could have been added to force the recusal of the judge, the attorney's former law partner.

The underlying case was a high-stakes financial dispute in a closely held business. It had been litigated for six years, but was delayed when the defendants added a new lawyer to their team. This lawyer was the former law partner of the judge assigned to the case, who had already put substantial time and effort into the matter. However, to avoid any appearance of impropriety, the judge immediately recused himself when the new lawyer, the former partner, was added. Our position was that it could appear that this was precisely what the defense had intended. In fact, the new lawyer was added two days after three rulings on motions that the new judge called "hotly contested," including rulings unfavorable to the defense.

Another attorney for the defense was a recognized expert in legal ethics, we argued, so the defense clearly must have known that the judge might recuse himself. Furthermore, the defense admitted that it had discussed the possibility of recusal with the client. And finally, the new lawyer had chosen what we alleged was a non-standard way to notify the court of his addition. Rather than asking for leave of court to move for the addition, which would have allowed the parties to discuss the addition in open court, he simply sent his appearance directly to the judge. The trial court held this was contrary to both the rules of court and the usual practice. All of this showed that it appeared that the attorney might have been added to force a change of judges, we argued. For those reasons, we moved to disqualify the new attorney.

In response to our motion, the Presiding Judge of the Cook County Chancery Division struck the new attorneys appearance in a detailed decision explaining that it was important to protect the Cook County Chancery Court from the stain of even the appearance of improriety. The Judge wrote:

The fact remains that [the new lawyer's] filing of his appearance for the defendants two days after rulings on three hotly contested motions (including significant rulings adverse to defendants), the filing of that appearance without leave of court and without prior notice to the plaintiffs, and the sending of the appearance by messenger directly to [the first judge] when the next court date was scheduled within a few weeks, with the result being the immediate recusal of the judge, just simply looks bad.

You can view the full opinion by clicking here.

As business trial attorneys in Naperville, Oak Brook, Wheaton and throughout the Chicago area, we have found that Illinois judges have a low tolerance for even the appearance of impropriety. If you are part of a business dispute where you feel "pushed around" by the other side's discovery violations or other behavior that appears intended to slow justice, DiTommaso * Lubin can help. Please contact us to learn more about your rights.

To see more about our firm and the cases we have handled click here.

A recent case of ours includes a motion to disqualify attorneys for the defense under Rule 3.7 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct. Part (b) of that rule states that a lawyer may not represent a client in a case where he or she may be called as a witness to give testimony prejudicial to the client. We moved for an evidentiary hearing on this subject, because our underlying contentions included the contention that the lawyers for the defense witnessed the intentional torts that underlay the case.

Illinois law takes a motion to disqualify an attorney very seriously. Disqualifying a lawyer is considered drastic under state law, because it touches on basic rights by destroying the client's relationship with the lawyer of his or her choosing. Schwartz v. Cortelloni, 177 Ill.2d 166 (1997). For that reason, an evidentiary hearing to determine what evidence is relevant and admissible is generally either necessary or wise. City of Kalamazoo v. Michigan Disposal Service, 125 FSupp2d 219 (WD Mich 2000). In fact, some appeals courts have found that a lack of an evidentiary hearing is sufficient to allow them to question a trial court's decision.

However, Illinois and federal courts have held that an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary when the facts are not disputed, or when investigation is unlikely to provoke an admission that one side has ulterior motives. Robinson v. Boeing Co., 79 F3d 1053 (11th Cir 1996). The Eleventh Circuit's decision in In Re BellSouth Corp., 334 F3d 941, 962 (11th Cir 2003), supporting Robinson, laid down factors for judges to consider when considering disqualifying an attorney for alleged "judge shopping." These include "the fundamental right to counsel, the court’s docket, the injury to the plaintiff, the delay in reaching decision, the judicial time invested, the expense to the parties objecting and the potential for manipulation or impropriety."

The underlying case is related to a shareholder freeze-out lawsuit, in which we represented a 50% shareholder in a closely held corporation.

Our Chicago, Oak Brook and Naperville commercial trial attorneys, DiTommaso * Lubin, represent clients in greater Chicago and throughout Illinois involved in commercial disputes. In addition to shareholder freeze-out and squeeze-out litigation, we handle a variety of business, commercial and corporate litigation for both large corporations and closely held companies. If you have a similar dispute and you would like to discuss it with us confidentially, please contact us through our Web site or by phone.

In a Chicago breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty case, the Illinois First District Court of Appeal has ruled that an insurance company may sue a bank for allowing embezzlement from one of the insurer's clients. Continental Casualty Company v. American National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago, No. 1-07-0627 (Sept. 25, 2008).

Continental Casualty Company is the assignee of General Automation, Inc. GAI was the victim of $1.32 million worth of embezzlement by an accountant, Lawrence Cohn, who deposited $370,000 of the stolen money into his own account at American National Bank. (He also embezzled by paying his client's money directly to the IRS to cover his own taxes.) The checks drew on GAI's corporate account, also at ANB. After Cohn was caught, his former accounting firms settled with GAI, but the bank did not. Continental Casualty, the insurer for one of Cohn's former firms, sued ANB as GAI's assignee for allowing the fraudulent deposits, for breach of contract and violation of the Illinois Fiduciary Obligations Act.

The trial court dismissed the case on statute-of-limitations and insufficiency grounds. The appeals court reversed and remanded, but the trial court again stopped the case, granting summary judgment to ANB because the Illinois Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act bars settlement requests from a settling party to a nonsettling party. This was the subject of the instant appeal.

On appeal, ANB argued that it was jointly liable with MCW, one of Cohn's former accounting firms, for the applicable amount of Cohn's embezzlement. Because Continental Casualty insured MCW, ANB argued that both it and Continental Casualty are jointly liable for the embezzlement. And by gaining an assignment of GAI's claims, ANB argued, Continental Casualty sought an indirect contribution against ANB. This violates the Contribution Act, which says a settling defendant may not seek payment from a non-settling defendant. Continental Casualty replied that Cohn was not employed by MCW when he embezzled the $370,000, meaning the injury in the instant suit is not the same as the injury to MCW from Cohn's other embezzlement schemes.

On review, the appeals court could not find evidence in the settlement with GAI as to whether the embezzlement was considered one scheme or more. However, it noted, the settlement did say Cohn was involved in "embezzlements," which took place in different ways and while Cohn was at two different firms. This raises a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the injury to MCW is the same as the injury that has been assigned to Continental Casualty, which in turn raises doubts about whether the Contribution Act applies.

Because there is a genuine issue of material fact -- the bar for denying summary judgment -- the appeals court reversed and remanded the trial court's summary judgment decision. It also dismissed various arguments that the claim is time-barred by pointing to facts in the record, some of which suggest that there are also genuine issues of fact on when and how the embezzlement should have been discovered.

The Oak Brook business litigation firm of DiTommaso * Lubin handles breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and other business disputes in Naperville and throughout Illinois. To speak to us about your case, please contact us online or via telephone.

To see more about our firm and the cases we have handled click here.

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, Oak Brook, Wheaton and Naperville business trial 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.

In a shareholder derivative action related to 2004's merger between Bank One and J.P. Morgan Chase, the Illinois First District Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal with prejudice of a complaint filed by Bank One shareholders. Shaper v. Bryan, No. 1-05-3849 (March 8, 2007).

The dispute grew out of the high-profile merger of Bank One with J.P. Morgan Chase. As part of the deal, J.P. Morgan agreed to issue stock to each Bank One shareholder worth 14% more than the Bank One shares' closing price on the day of the merger. In other words, Bank One shareholders received extra value as part of the deal. Bank One CEO James Dimon would serve as president and COO of J.P. Morgan Chase for two years, after which he would take over for the existing CEO. These two men negotiated both the premium and the succession plan themselves.

Media reports soon appeared, suggesting that Bank One shareholders could have gotten a much larger premium from another company or through another negotiator. The media also reported that Dimon was eager to move to New York and take over as the leader of J.P. Morgan Chase, offering to do the deal for no premium at all if he could start as CEO without waiting the two years.

Shareholders for Bank One filed suit, alleging that officers and directors breached their fiduciary duty to shareholders by accepting a lower price than they would likely have gotten by opening bidding to other companies. They also alleged that Dimon had a conflict of interests during the negotiations because he stood to gain higher compensation and CEO status. Finally, they alleged that termination fees that were part of the deal created an insurmountable obstacle to any higher offer. The trial court dismissed their complaint, and the appeals court affirmed.

In its opinion, the justices wrote that Dimon didn't meet the classic examples of a self-interested officer director -- someone on both sides of the transaction or someone who stood to gain a personal benefit. Furthermore, they said, the courts of Delaware, which govern this transaction, have routinely rejected the argument that maintaining an officer position is a debilitating factor in negotiations. Similarly, the board in the transaction didn't breach its duty of care, they wrote, because it had no special obligation to inform itself of Dimon's no-premium offer, nor is there anything to suggest it didn't know about that offer.

Finally, the shareholders argued that termination fees built into the merger made it impossible to entertain another offer, which constituted a breach of the board's duty of care. Importantly for Illinois business litigators, the justices also wrote that the two-stage test required by the Delaware Supreme Court in Unocal Corporation v. Mesa Petroleum Co., 493 A.2d 946 (Del. 1985), and Omnicare, Inc. v. NCS Healthcare, Inc., 818 A.2d 914 (Del. 2003) didn't apply. The court pointed out that the board retained a "fiduciary out," termination fees were reciprocal and the shareholders retained the right to vote against the merger. Thus, the appeals court upheld dismissal of the case with prejudice.

A minority shareholder may withdraw his complaint under the Illinois Business Corporation Act of 1983, because the majority shareholder failed to meet requirements of that law, the Illinois Third District Court of Appeal ruled in an Illinois shareholder dispute lawsuit. Lohr v. Havens, 3-06-0930 (Nov. 11, 2007).

Charles Lohr owned a large minority of the stock in Phoenix Paper Products, Inc., a closely held private corporation in Illinois. He and another shareholder, James Durham, became concerned about possible financial mismanagement by the majority shareholder and president, Terry Havens, and their accountant, Samuel Morris. In months of correspondence, they accused Havens and Morris of taking unspecified inappropriate actions without shareholder approval.

This culminated in a 2003 lawsuit by Lohr alleging that Havens and Morris were misusing the company’s resources and acting illegally. Count I of the suit asked the court to either order a buyout of all Lohr’s stock or dissolve the company. Havens filed a timely election to buy Lohr’s shares, but Lohr accused Havens of illegally doing this without shareholder approval. After two years of discovery, Lohr asked to withdraw Count I and its associated demands, but Havens objected. The trial court found that because Havens hadn’t notified shareholders about the election, it was invalid, allowing Lohr to dismiss Count I of his complaint. Havens appealed.

The Illinois Third District Court of Appeal ruled that because Havens did not notify other shareholders of the election, the election was invalid, leaving Lohr free to drop his claim. In its analysis, the court noted that a proper election would stop a shareholder in Lohr’s position from dismissing a petition -- but the plain language and the intent of the law both require notice of an election to shareholders within ten days. For the same reasons, the court also disagreed with Havens’s contention that the trial court was required to hold a hearing to assess equities before allowing Lohr to dismiss his petition.

As Chicago, Oak Brook and Naperville business and shareholder rights litigators with a substantial practice in business and shareholder disputes we’re always pleased to see clarifications of Illinois business law from the courts.

Only managers in manager-operated limited liability corporations have a fiduciary duty to the company or to other members, the First District Court of Appeal ruled in a usurpation of corporate opportunity lawsuit involving a closely held LLC. Katris v. Carroll, No. 1-04-3639 (Dec. 23, 2005).

Peter Katris was one of four members/officers and two managers of an Illinois limited liability corporation, Viper Execution Systems LLC. Viper LLC was formed to market a type of options-related software, also called Viper, written by LLC member Stephen Doherty for member Lester Szlendak. Its articles of organization specified that management was vested in Katris and the other manager, William Hamburg.

Defendant Patrick Carroll employed Doherty before and during the organization, and defendant Ernst & Company later hired Doherty to work with Carroll. Their work included the writing of another software program, WWOW, which Katris believed was functionally similar to Viper. Five years after the organization, Katris sued Carroll and Ernst for collusion and usurpation of corporate opportunity because of WWOW’s similarity to Viper. (He also sued Doherty for collusion and breach of fiduciary duty, claims they later settled.)

Carroll and Ernst moved for summary judgment, arguing that collusion didn’t exist because it depended on Doherty’s fiduciary duty to Viper LLC. As a non-manager of the manager-managed Viper LLC, they argued, he had no such duty. Katris argued that Doherty’s written agreement to form Viper LLC and officer role left him subject to a manager’s duties. The trial court disagreed, granting summary judgment, and the appeals court upheld that decision.

In its analysis, the court noted that Article 15 of the Illinois Limited Liability Company Act explicitly says that a member of a manager-managed LLC in Illinois "who is not also a manager owes no duties to the company or to the other members solely by reason of being a member." Katris agreed with the law, but asserted that different language in the law gave Doherty managerial status because he fulfilled some of the duties of a manager as director of technology:

In a manager‑managed company:
...
(3) a member who pursuant to the operating agreement exercises some or all of the authority of a manager in the management and conduct of the company's business is held to the standards of conduct in subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e) of this Section [manager’s duties of loyalty and care] to the extent that the member exercises the managerial authority vested in a manager by this Act...

The appeals court found that the plain language of the statute giving no liability to non-managers was clear and perfectly adequate for determining the intent of the Illinois legislature in enacting the law, so it declined to reverse the trial court. Furthermore, it said, Doherty’s position as director of technology didn’t elevate him to a manager because the two managers, Katris and Hamburg, didn’t have a majority vote when they gave Doherty that role, meaning they couldn’t amend the operating agreement to make Doherty a manager. And furthermore, the court argued, Katris and Hamburg signed that agreement as “all the managers” of Viper LLC, undermining Katris’s argument that Doherty was given a managerial role:

The undisputed facts of this case show that Doherty was a member of a manager-managed LLC and exercised no managerial authority pursuant to the LLC's operating agreement. Accordingly, the undisputed facts show that Doherty owed no fiduciary duties to Katris or the LLC pursuant to the Act and Katris' collusion claim against Carroll and Ernst fails as a matter of law.

Experienced Illinois business litigators probably recognize Professor Charles W. Murdock of the Loyola University Chicago School of Law as a former Illinois Deputy Attorney General, former Loyola Dean and expert on Illinois business law. Given his status, it was with great interest that we read some of his scholarship on the concept of fairness in conflicts between shareholders or other parties interested in a business, especially in situations where the majority is using its greater power against a minority. These papers are a few years old, but they directly address some of the issues that are important to our firm and our clients in corporate freeze-out or squeeze-out litigation, breach of fiduciary duty and other internal business disputes in closely held companies.

In Fairness and Good Faith as a Precept in the Law of Corporations and Other Business Organizations, 36 Loy.U.Chi. L.J. 551 (2005), Murdock addresses the fiduciary duty of good faith and fairness that controlling interests of a business owe to minority interests. Noting that this internal duty is a fairly recent legal phenomenon, he surveys caselaw on the subject from around the country that applies to closely held corporations, public corporations and LLCs. Noting that the Uniform Limited Liability Company Act (ULLCA), a model law adopted by several states, doesn't include language that gives members of an LLC fiduciary duties to one another, he praises Illinois for modifying that language to protect members in the updated Limited Liability Company Act.

Another of Murdock's articles that directly addresses issues important to us is 2004's Squeeze-outs, Freeze-outs and Discounts: Why Is Illinois in the Minority in Protecting Shareholder Interests?, 35 Loyola Chicago L.J.737 (2004). As you might expect from the title, Murdock argues in the article that Illinois business law, despite its "pro-shareholder" reputation, fails to protect minority shareholders in "fair value" proceedings. (Fair value proceedings are intended to resolve conflicts when majority shareholders want to do something that would harm the minority shareholders.) Until recently, those proceedings often led to marketability and liquidity discounts imposed on minorities, and the courts usually allowed it -- giving rise to Murdock's criticism. However, amendments to the Illinois Business Corporation Act in 2007 prohibited these discounts "absent extraordinary circumstances." While the article is now out of date, fortunately for minority shareholders in Illinois, it still provides good arguments for the change and a survey of common circumstances under which fair value proceedings might arise.

The doctrine of laches bars a plaintiff from bringing a stolen corporate opportunities lawsuit, the Illinois First District Court of Appeal has ruled. Lozman v. Putnam, No. 1- 06-0861 (February 18, 2008).

Plaintiff Fane Lozman and defendant Gerald Putnam met in 1986 as employees of the same Chicago securities firm. Eight years later, Lozman came up with an idea for a new type of software for traders, and hired another defendant, Townsend Analytics Inc., to program it. To market the software, Lozman and Putnam formed Blue Water Partners, Inc., an Illinois corporation, in 1994. Each was a 50% shareholder and a director. The plan was to barter the software for a share of a brokerage firm’s commissions on trades. Townsend Analytics and its owners, Stuart and Marrgwen Townsend, were offered 15% equity in Blue Water but no director or officer positions.

Later that year, Putnam formed Terra Nova Trading, LLC, with himself as 100% shareholder, to route profits from Blue Water. Another company, Analytic Services, LLC, was formed to sell the software, with Samuel Long as president. In April of 1995, Putnam and Lozman signed an agreement to share commissions generated through or paid by Townsend and its software. For a variety of personal and professional reasons, the relationship between Lozman and Putnam went sour, and they voluntarily dissolved the agreement six months later. A later termination agreement, back-dated to the day of the dissolution, preserved any legal claims. Putnam went on to form three more companies that used the same office and brokerage license as Blue Water, subcontracted with the Townsends and/or competed with Blue Water.

In 1999, Lozman sued for usurpation of corporate opportunity, breach of joint venture, unjust enrichment and fraudulent conveyance of assets. In court, the two men disagreed on the meanings of a variety of their agreements. After a tortuous procedural history including two previous appeals and a dual bench and advisory-only jury trial in the instant action, the court found for the remaining defendants. Among its findings was that the usurpation of corporate opportunities claims by Lozman and Blue Water were barred by laches -- they had waited four years to file their claims. They appealed on that and other grounds, but the appeals court affirmed.

In its opinion, the court noted that plaintiffs claimed Putnam fraudulently breached a fiduciary duty to disclose certain facts, so the running of the laches claim should have started only after Lozman discovered the alleged breach. Prueter v. Bork, 105 Ill. App. 3d 1003, 1007 (1981). However, the court wrote, plaintiffs failed to explain what facts Putnam failed to disclose or when they learned of them, nor did they cite cases that supported their position. Furthermore, the change of circumstances during Illinois’ five-year statute of limitations for a breach of fiduciary duty precluded arguments that laches shouldn’t apply. Thus, the laches finding was upheld, as were the rest of the trial court’s findings.

A former shareholder, officer and director did not breach his fiduciary duty to a corporation when he started a competing company, and a former employee did not breach his duty of loyalty by joining, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled. Cooper Linse Hallman v. Hallman, No. 1-05-0597 (2006).

Plaintiff Cooper Linse Capital Management, a closely held financial services company, brought on Thomas Hallman in 1994 as a shareholder with 20% of stock shares. The remainder were divided evenly between Lori Cooper and Don Linse. Hallman served as vice president and CFO as well as an employee. Two years later, the company hired James McQuinn as an employee only. Neither man signed a written confidentiality agreement, and both disputed Cooper Linse's contention that they entered into an oral confidentiality agreement. All parties agreed that Linse and Cooper made all of the business decisions.

In 2000, the company that held Cooper Linse's clients' accounts in trust got into financial trouble and had its assets frozen, leaving clients unable to access their accounts and Cooper Linse unable to pay its employees. Linse began negotiations to take over that company's trust business; McQuinn and Hallman quietly began planning to start a business competing with Cooper Linse.

Five months after the assets were frozen, Hallman and McQuinn left for their new firm, taking client lists with them. They had used Cooper Linse computers to plan some aspects of the business, and negotiated to use a soliciting firm that Cooper Linse had previously used. Cooper Linse filed suit against Hallman and McQuinn for seven counts of corporate misconduct, including breach of fiduciary duty against Hallman and breach of duty of loyalty against McQuinn. The trial court found for Hallman and McQuinn on those two counts, and Cooper Linse appealed.

The appeals court affirmed, saying Hallman and McQuinn didn't breach even the strictest duties they had to Cooper Linse. Under Illinois caselaw, the court wrote, former employees like McQuinn may compete with their former employers and even plan their businesses while they're still employed, as long as they don't start competing until they have terminated their employment.

By contrast, the court pointed out that directors and officers like Hallman have a fiduciary duty not to exploit their positions for personal gain, including starting a competing business without telling other officers. But in this case, the justices found no evidence for the breaches alleged by Cooper Linse. One of its allegations was that the two men had asked the soliciting firm for business before leaving Cooper Linse, which indeed could have been a breach. But because Linse himself was involved in some of the meetings and the men testified that they never solicited the business, the trial court found there was no breach and the appeals court agreed. Other arguments fell similarly flat; in particular, the court noted that there was no written confidentiality agreement. Thus, "their conduct did not rise to the level of a breach of their fiduciary duties because they neither exploited their positions for their personal benefit and to the detriment of plaintiff nor impeded plaintiff’s ability to do business.... To hold that Hallman’s and McQuinn’s actions were a breach of their fiduciary duties would be to virtually prevent all officers and directors from seeking new employment prior to resigning from their current positions."

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.