Chicago Business Litigation Lawyer Blog

As Illinois trade secrets litigation attorneys, we were interested to see a trade secrets lawsuit arise out of the time-sensitive and competitive world of women’s fashion. As the Naples Daily News reported in July, Florida clothing company Chico’s FAS Inc. has sued competitor Cache Inc. and two former employees who moved to Cache, Rabia Farhang and Christine Board. Chico’s alleges that Farhang and Board shared designs from Chico’s White House/Black Market line with Cache, resulting in nearly identical spring and summer collections from the two brands. The lawsuit’s complaint includes exhibits of pictures of both collections. It accuses the women of breach of their nondisclosure agreements and legal duties, and Cache of inducing them to breach those agreements, and all defendants of tortious interference with contractual relations, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, theft, unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy.

According to the complaint in the case (PDF), which was filed in New York state court, Cache has not been financially successful in the past four or five years, during which time Chico’s White House/Black Market line has done well. Chico’s alleges that Cache tried to fix this by inducing Farhang and Board to leave Chico’s in the fall of 2009, taking their knowledge of design plans for 2010 clothing lines along with other trade secrets and confidential information. At Chico’s, Farhang and Board both participated in the designs of the 2010 lines, Farhang as a senior officer. Using the allegedly stolen designs, the complaint says, Cache saw an increase in sales in spring of 2010, and Chico’s alleges that Cache will use stolen designs in its fall line as well. Because of this, it requested preliminary and permanent injunctions stopping Cache from selling clothes from its spring, summer and fall lines, as well as a recall of the spring and summer lines. It also asked for financial damages and court orders protecting its trade secrets and confidential information.

Our Chicago business emergency lawyers believe this case is a good example of a situation in which swift action is necessary. If the allegations by Chico’s are true, its intellectual property and brand have already been somewhat diluted by Cache’s use of very similar designs in its spring and summer lines. This would be ongoing damage to the company that includes difficult-to-measure non-financial harm to its identity and customer loyalty, as well as actual financial damages from infringement. Furthermore, the tight schedules of fashion and retail companies mean that they bring out their fall lines in mid-summer, which means the court must take quick action on the July 29 lawsuit to stop the infringing on the fall line. This also means that Cache’s fiscal health could be in serious trouble if the count chooses to grant the injunction against the fall line and the recall order for the spring and summer lines. For both sides, this claim represents a legal emergency requiring quick action to protect their business.

Continue reading "Clothing Retailer Sues Competitor and Former Employees Alleging They Stole Secret Designs" »

Our Chicago trade secrets litigation attorneys were interested to see that a trade secrets and breach of restrictive covenant case was responsible for clarifying a point of procedure at the trial level. In Vision Point of Sale v. Haas et al., No. 103140 (Ill. Sup. Co. Sept. 20, 2007), the Cook County trial court certified a question of law having to do with unintentional noncompliance with a procedural requirement. In such a case, the court asked, may courts consider information of record that goes beyond the reasons for the noncompliance? The First District Court of Appeal said yes, but the Illinois Supreme Court reverse that decision.

The case arises from a Trade Secrets Act, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference and unjust enrichment claim filed by Vision Point of Sale, Inc. against Ginger Haas and Legacy Inc. Haas was an executive assistant at Vision before resigning and immediately taking a job at Legacy. Vision contended that Haas, at Legacy’s direction, stole confidential and proprietary information as she left, with the goal of soliciting Vision’s customers. Both companies refurbish and sell used point-of-sale equipment. Vision requested and received a preliminary injunction as well as a permanent injunction. Discovery on the permanent injunction included a request for admissions from defendants. When Vision returned its responses, the final page was signed by its attorney, but the final page of the document was signed by Vision CEO Frank Muscarello. This violated the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, which required Muscarello’s signature on the final page of responses as well.

The defendants immediately moved to strike the document as defective and deem all of its facts admitted because of the missing signature. The trial court granted that motion. Vision moved for more time to file a set of amended responses. That motion argued that a good-faith reading of the rules was enough “good cause” to allow the amendment. It was denied, but after the case proceeded and the court became frustrated with the defendants’ noncompliance with the preliminary injunction, it vacated that denial and allowed Vision to amend its responses. Not surprisingly, the defendants objected and asked the court to certify the question in the instant appeal. The appellate court found that courts may consider information in the record beyond the reasons for the noncompliance, writing that in this situation, the circuit court may consider any facts that “strike a balance between diligence in litigation and the interests of justice.” The defendants appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court.

In considering this appeal, the high court said it was considering Supreme Court Rule 183, and to a lesser extent, Rule 216. Rule 183 says that courts may extend deadlines if one party makes a motion requesting the extension and shows good cause. The relevant parts of Rule 216, which deals with requests for admissions, say that recipients must respond within 28 days with a sworn statement denying the objections or a written statement saying they are improper in some way. Otherwise, every fact in the document is deemed admitted. The court started with a detailed discussion of Bright v. Dicke, 166 Ill. 2d 204 (1995), the last Illinois Supreme Court case interpreting the good-cause requirement. In that case, the high court found that circuit courts have the discretion to extend the 28-day deadline for responses to requests to admit.

However, the Bright court upheld the trial court’s decision to deny an extension in that particular case, because the movant had failed to show good cause. That court said the “mere absence of inconvenience or prejudice to the opposing party is not sufficient to establish good cause under Rule 183,” and that the burden of establishing good cause should be on the movant. Thus, the rule established by Bright says that trial courts may extend deadlines for responses to requests for admissions if the movant can show good cause. The defendants argue that this is inconsistent with the appellate court’s ruling in the instant case -- and the Supreme Court agreed. The appellate court’s analysis focused on issues other than why the plaintiffs failed to meet their deadline, the high court wrote, making it at odds with Bright. Allowing courts to consider the totality of the circumstances, the court wrote, would allow too many irrelevant issues to enter into the analysis.

However, the court did agree with plaintiffs that the cases subsequently arising from Bright created an unduly harsh discovery rule. Cases like Hammond v. SBC Communications, Inc. (SBC), 365 Ill. App. 3d 879, 893 (2006) expanded the rule in Bright to create “a second, broader, harsher, and apparently inflexible standard that ‘mistake, inadvertence, or attorney neglect’ on the part of the moving party can never serve as the sole basis for establishing good cause[.]” This can be fatal to cases and is unnecessarily severe, the high court said, but the appellate court’s decision is not the answer. Rather, the Supreme Court clarified that it never intended such a result in Bright and overruled cases creating that result. This analysis was enough for the Supreme Court to overrule the trial court’s ruling on the discovery motion in this case. However, the high court also found that the plaintiffs’ response was not deficient because the appellate ruling on which it is based, Moy v. Ng, 341 Ill. App. 3d 984 (2003), has no basis in Rule 216 or the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, the appellate court was reversed and the case was remanded.

Continue reading "Illinois Supreme Court Resolves Question on Unintentional Missed Deadlines in Trade Secrets Case" »

DiTommaso-Lubin represents businesses caught on either side of a dispute about online or offline defamation of a business or its products or services. Our Chicago business attorneys have assisted our clients in removing damaging and false reviews from internet review sites run by their competitors. Self-publishing on the Internet, and sites like Yelp, make it easy for individuals to publish false information about a competitor or a business they don’t happen to like. Online business libel laws balance the need to protect small businesses from false and damaging information with the First Amendment right to free speech. Our Illinois trade libel and trade disparagment attorneys represent both plaintiffs and defendants in claims regarding false and misleading claims; deceptive online publishing; misuse of a trademark, logo or other identifying feature. You can contact one of our Nationwide Class Action attorneys at (877) 990-4990 for a free consultation or contact one of our Chicago class action attorneys us online.

NPR reports:

A number of recent high-profile lawsuits suggest that companies must preserve important email documents on their computer systems, or risk major court sanctions. Increasingly, companies are turning to outside vendors to ensure they don't accidentally destroy electronic documents that could come up in a lawsuit

Continue reading "NPR Reports Trial-Bound Companies Learn Lesson: Save E-Mail" »

A recent decision by the Seventh Circuit caught the notice of our Illinois trademark infringement litigators. Schering-Plough Healthcare Products Inc. v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc. et al, Nos. 09-1438, 09-1462, 09-1601 (7th Cir. Oct. 29, 2009) is a dispute between the original maker of a laxative whose patent has expired and the companies that now manufacture a generic version. Schering, the original patent holder, sued four companies for claiming that the drug’s active ingredient is not available over the counter, when Schering does manufacture an over-the-counter version. The trial court in the case dismissed Schering’s complaint, a decision the Seventh Circuit upholds here.

The laxative in question was originally sold as the prescription drug MiraLAX. After its patent expired, the four defendants were authorized to sell generic prescription versions, either as GlycoLax or under the chemical name polyethylene glycol 3350. All four defendants’ drugs have labels stating that the active ingredients in their drugs are sold only by prescription. This is a requirement of the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act, but it is no longer entirely true. After the generic versions were approved, Schering won approval for an over-the-counter version of MiraLAX. It brought a trademark lawsuit against the defendants, claiming their labeling makes false and misleading statements that misrepresent the nature of their own and Schering’s products, and constitute misbranding under the FD&C Act.

Importantly, the FDA is conducting its own investigation into whether the generic drugs are now misbranded. Simultaneous sales of the same active ingredient in generic and over-the-counter versions violates federal law, which the FDA is also trying to resolve. The Seventh Circuit noted that the FDA may resolve Schering’s lawsuit by finding that the generic drugs may no longer be sold, or that their labels are not false and misleading under the FD&C Act. In either case, the court wrote, it would rather defer that decision to the FDA. This was also the decision of the trial court in the case, which dismissed Schering’s case without prejudice, suggesting that the company re-file after the FDA’s decision, if necessary. Schering appealed, asking for a judgment in its favor rather than a trial. The defendants cross-appealed, arguing that the case should have been dismissed with prejudice.

The Seventh started by noting that a dismissal without prejudice is appealable unless the defect leading to it is immediately curable. It then turned to the merits of Schering’s claim. Letters from FDA regulators the company cited are irrelevant, the court said, because they did not determine the final outcome of the agency’s review. It also dismissed Schering’s argument that the generic drugs were misbranded under the FD&C Act because their labels say “prescription only,” noting that prescription drugs are required to carry this warning. And it noted that federal courts have previously resolved conflicts between FDA labeling requirements and intellectual property law, including in SmithKline Beecham Consumer Healthcare, L.P. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 211 F.3d 21 (2d Cir. 2000).

Schering has been “coy” about what kind of labeling it would find sufficient on the generic drugs, the court wrote, leaving suggested wording out of its briefs entirely and agreeing with suggested wording only under pressure at oral arguments. That reticence, the court wrote, made it believe this is not a matter that “can be resolved intelligently without a decision by the FDA.” Because it has more experience with how consumers interact with drug labeling, the court said, the FDA should decide on proper labeling before a Lanham Act claim is filed. Thus, the Seventh Circuit upheld the trial court’s decision to dismiss Schering’s claim in anticipation of the FDA’s ruling. For the same reason, however, it also upheld the district court’s decision to dismiss without prejudice -- so Schering can re-file its claim, if necessary, in the future.

Continue reading "Generic Drugs Not Misbranded Under Lanham Act, Seventh Circuit Rules" »

Our Chicago business trial lawyers assist our clients in obtaining and collecting on money judgments. You can contact one of our Chicago business attorneys online by clicking here or call (888) 990-4990 for a free consultation. Our Oak Brook, Wheaton and Chicago commerical law attorneys have over 25 years of experience litigating claims on behalf of our business clients and have been featured in national and local media. Super Lawyers selected our Oak Brook and Chicago attorneys as among the top 5% in Illinois.

Vincent L. DiTommaso

online at

visit superlawyers.com

Peter S. Lubin

online at

visit superlawyers.com

As Chicago employment contract litigation attorneys, we noted a favorable decision for employees from the Seventh Circuit in October. Lewitton v. ITA Software, Inc., No. 08-3725 (7th Cir. Oct. 28, 2009) upheld a former employee’s right to buy stock options that had vested during his employment, even though he tried to make the purchase after leaving. Derek Lewitton was hired in April of 2005 as vice-president of sales at ITA Software, which makes a software program that compares the prices of airplane flights. His contract said some of his stock options would be forfeited if ITA didn’t meet certain revenue goals, subject to a time delay to account for delays in the development of a new program called 1U.

Unfortunately, 1U was never widely adopted among ITA’s clients, and ITA scaled it back considerably. Lewitton left ITA in May of 2007. In August of the same year, he tried to buy 138,900 shares of ITA stock. ITA let him buy only 34,722, arguing that the remaining 104,178 were forfeited under his contract. Lewitton sued ITA for breach of his employment contract. ITA removed the case to federal court under diversity jurisdiction, after which Lewitton moved for summary judgment, arguing that his employment contract was clear on his right to purchase stock options. The judge granted summary judgment, agreeing that the contract “unambiguously” granted 5,660 options for each month he was at ITA, and that no forfeiting events had taken place. ITA appealed.

The Seventh Circuit started by examining whether the language of Lewitton’s employment contract was ambiguous under Illinois law, which both parties agreed applies. The principal question, the court wrote, is whether the contract unambiguously allows Lewitton to buy the 5,660 shares per month he claims. The contract specifies that those shares are forfeited if ITA didn’t meet certain goals in by the end of an assessment period, but that assessment period would be deferred it the development schedule for 1U was “materially deferred.” In trial court, both sides agreed that 1U’s development didn’t go the way it was expected to go. On that basis, the trial court found that the assessment period was never triggered, and thus the stock options were not forfeited. On appeal, ITA argued that “materially deferred” was ambiguous and not intended to apply when ITA put the program on indefinite hold.

The Seventh disagreed, finding the term unambiguous. The ordinary dictionary definitions of the words are clear, the court wrote. And in fact, the contract includes parts that explain a material deferral by using the words “defer” and “delay” interchangeably. That example clearly shows that the parties agreed to delay the assessment period until after 1U was launched. Because 1U was never launched, the assessment period was never started, the court wrote, and thus the stock option forfeiture provision does not apply. The court dismissed ITA’s argument that the contract was never intended to give Lewitton more shares than other ITA executives. That argument was supported by negotiations and internal ITA communications, the court wrote, and caselaw requires it to consider none of that extrinsic evidence. Furthermore, the contract had a clause specifying that it supersedes all prior “agreements, understandings or negotiations.”

ITA also argued that even if the contract is unambiguous, the case presented an issue of material fact inappropriate for summary judgment. The issue in question, ITA said, is whether ITA really did delay the 1U program rather than ending it altogether. However, the court found that this was “just another attempt to create ambiguity where none exists.” At the district court, the Seventh Circuit noted, ITA made several statements through affidavits and discovery conceding that work was still being done, although resources devoted to it were significantly reduced or nonexistent. Nothing in the record points to a genuine issue of material fact on this question, the court wrote, so the trial court was upheld in its summary judgment order. Finally, the Seventh dismissed ITA’s contention that the district court should determine whether the options are valid under Delaware law (it’s a Delaware corporation), because it had explicitly waived that argument in an agreed order. Thus, the Seventh upheld the district court on all issues.

Continue reading "Former Employee’s Stock Options Remain Valid Under Employment Contract" »

DiTommaso-Lubin prosecutes and defends cases involving controversies over a covenant not to compete, or other restrictive covenants and other business law issues. Our Illinois restrictive covenant attorneys represent clients in active litigation over the validity and enforcement of these covenants, as well as helping to evaluate whether litigation may arise over such a contract. With more than 25 years of experience, we have handled these claims for businesses of every size, from large corporations to family-owned businesses, as well as individual employees. Based in downtown Chicago and in Oak Brook near Naperville, Hinsdale, Wheaton and Downers Grove, our Chicago business law lawyers represent clients throughout the state of Illinois, as well as in Indiana and Wisconsin. To learn more about how our Illinois covenant not to compete lawyers can help you, please do not hesitate to contact us through our Web site or call toll-free at 1-877-990-4990.

Our Chicago business law lawyers at DiTommaso-Lubin are dedicated to helping businesses and business people in pursuing and protecting their rights in business lawsuits. To see the the wide variety of business lawsuits our Chicago business trial attorneys have handled click here. You can contact one of our Oakbrook and Chicago business law attorneys through our website by clicking here.

The online magazine of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners is a great resouce for tips on uncovering the varying forms of business fraud. You can click here to view it.

A recent issue of the magazine had a very informative article about how certain types of documents are susceptible to employee forgies and other frauds . The article had this to say about fax invoices:

FACSIMILE DOCUMENTS

Facsimile documents, even though they’re reproductions of original documents, are considered original source documents. So fraud perpetrators often use them to support fictitious disbursement transactions because internal reviewers or even external auditors aren’t likely to question them. Faxes obviously still have a legitimate purpose for emergency or other rush transactions. However, the organization should always require that vendors subsequently mail the original source documents to them. The staff should hold the faxes until the original source documents have been received and then file them with any other documents supporting the disbursement transaction.

Unscrupulous employees might use the organization’s fax machine to send themselves vendor invoices. So always double check the vendor’s fax telephone number shown on the top of the facsimile with numbers in the organization’s vendor file, in the telephone book, or from the vendor’s website. And be suspicious if the number is missing; fraud perpetrators might have removed it from the faxed document before processing it. A fax in the file doesn’t necessarily mean the transaction is valid.

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 Wuakegan, Aurora, Highland Park, Wilmette, Elmhurst, 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 Naperville and Chicago business lawl attorneys and class action and consumer trial lawyers, please call us toll-free at 1-877-990-4990 or contact us through the Internet.

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 Wuakegan, Aurora, Highland Park, Wilmette, Elmhurst, 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, Joliet, Waukegan, Wheaton, 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 Illinois trade secrets attorneys were pleased to see an evenhanded ruling handed down by the Second District Court of Appeal. In Stenstrom Petroleum Services Group, Inc. v. Mesch, No. 2-07-0504 (Ill. 2nd Sept.7, 2007), Stenstrom sued former employee Robert Mesch for breach of a noncompete clause, breach of fiduciary duty and violations of the Illinois Trade Secrets Act. The case arises out of Mesch’s decision to leave Stenstrom and join Precision Petroleum Installation Inc., a competitor with nearly the same name as a company that Stenstrom bought. The trial court granted Stenstrom a preliminary injunction on its breach of contract claim, but denied injunctions on the other claims.

Mesch had worked in the petroleum industry since 1974, eventually becoming a project manager and salesman. Stenstrom installs, maintains and repairs petroleum equipment, such as tanks, pumps and electronics. Mesch had been working for Precision Petroleum Inc. when Stenstrom bought it in 2003. Mesch was hired during the acquisition to do the same work, and signed noncompete and confidentiality agreements. The noncompete agreement restricted Mesch from working in excavation or equipment repair in Winnebago and Boone counties for six months after his employment ended. When estimating and making bids for Stenstrom, Mesch testified that he used a crude spreadsheet inherited from his old company, rather than the estimating software other project managers at Stenstrom used.

In December of 2006, Mesch left Stenstrom and joined Precision Petroleum Installation Inc., a new company at which he had the opportunity to earn a share of profits as well as a salary. He acknowledged that PPI has bid on and discussed jobs only for Stenstrom customers, and its one client as of the hearing was a Stenstrom customer. He testified that he uses the same Excel spreadsheet and other Stenstrom data to estimate bids for PPI, but said purchasing differences between the companies mean he uses different information to calculate the bids. He also said PPI does not do excavation or repair work, relying on subcontractors. He acknowledged copying Stenstrom’s files for PPI’s use while he was at Stenstrom, but destroyed some data and handed over other data as part of the case. It would not be difficult to recreate the spreadsheet from memory, he said, because he created it, had Stenstrom discounts committed to memory and could get manufacturer prices from public knowledge.

Stenstrom president David Sockness testified at trial that the Excel spreadsheet was acquired in the 2003 purchase, is full of valuable Stenstrom information and is being used by other project managers. He said PPI had bidded on work for some of its best clients, but acknowledged that there was no exclusive agreement with several of these clients and that some take competitive bids. Stenstrom IT manager Brian Cotti testified that records show Mesch tried unsuccessfully to print a bidding report to which he did not have access. Two clients testified that their lengthy relationships with Mesch influenced their bidding decisions. At the conclusion of all of this, the trial court issued a preliminary injunction to enforce the noncompete covenant Mesch had signed until the end of the six-month period, saying it was reasonable. However, it found on the other counts that Stenstrom had failed to show it was likely to win at trial or that there was no other legal remedy available. Stenstrom and Mesch both appealed.

The Second District started by rejecting Stenstrom’s argument that the six-month restrictive covenant should have been calculated from the date Mesch ceased breaching it. The court flatly rejected this, saying the contract’s language clearly pegged the period from the day Mesch left his job at Stenstrom. It also rejected Stenstrom’s claim that it should have received a preliminary injunction based on Trade Secrets Act violations. This is based on the Excel spreadsheet Mesch used to create bids at Stenstrom and later at PPI, which Stenstrom said were full of protectable information and the result of significant investment. However, the appeals court said, Stenstrom failed to rebut Mesch’s testimony that the spreadsheet was based on publicly available information and memory, so it failed to raise a fair question about whether the information was secret enough to qualify as a trade secret.

Next, Stenstrom argued that the trial court should have granted an injunction against Mesch based on his alleged breach of fiduciary duty, a claim it said it made to avoid Stenstrom’s solicitation of its customers. Mesch was working for PPI when he copied Stenstrom’s files, the company said, and used it for PPI’s benefit. However, the Second District wrote, much of Stenstrom’s argument on breach of fiduciary duty rests on its Trade Secrets Act claim. That issue was settled above, the court said. Furthermore, Stenstrom waived its breach of fiduciary duty claim by failing to argue it clearly, the court said.

Finally, the court rejected Mesch’s argument that the trial court should have entered no preliminary injunction at all on the breach of restrictive covenant claim. Mesch is wrong to argue that the enforcement of the restrictive covenant will affect the independent Trade Secrets Act and breach of fiduciary duty claims, the court wrote. But in any case, it said, the issue is moot because the preliminary injunction period ended before the case came to the Second District. And thanks to the court’s decision on Stenstrom’s argument to change the period when the restrictive covenant applies, there’s no need to consider it. Thus, all of the trial court’s decisions were affirmed.

Continue reading "Business Not Entitled to Injunctions for Alleged Trade Secrets Act and Fiduciary Duty Violations -- Our Chicago Business Law Attorneys Have Substantial Experience in Emergency Business Litigation Involving TROs and Injunctions" »

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 Illinois noncompete clause attorneys recently noted an important case addressing the standards for a preliminary injunction in Illinois lawsuits over covenants not to compete. In Lifetec, Inc. v. Edwards, No. 4-07-0300 (Ill. 4th Nov. 6, 2007), Lifetec sued former salesman Peter Edwards for breach of three restrictive covenants in his employment contract. It also sued his wife, Carol Edwards, and new employer, Patterson Medical Supply Inc., for tortious interference with the contract. Trial court granted Lifetec a preliminary injunction, and Edwards filed the instant appeal.

Lifetec sells medical devices and products. When Edwards began working there as a salesman, he signed a contract agreeing not to:

• Compete with Lifetec, or sell or lease the products he had been assigned during the last 18 months of his employment, or competing products, within the territory assigned to him in the last 18 months of his employment.
  
• Directly or indirectly solicit purchase or lease of the product or competing products within the same territory.
  
• Work as a distributor or sales representative for any manufacturer that was a client of Lifetec, or for a competitor that also handles the client’s products, within the last 12 months.

The restrictive covenant applied for 24 months after the employment agreement was terminated.

Edwards left Lifetec for Patterson, a larger competitor, after 10 years. According to the opinion, he knew the move could cause Lifetec to sue and gave Patterson a copy of the agreement, but Patterson said it would take care of him in any lawsuit. Several months later, he admitted to a former colleague that he was working for Patterson. Months later, Lifetec sued him for breach of contract and requested a preliminary injunction. At an evidentiary hearing, evidence was introduced that Edwards had solicited Lifetec customers, but he said all Lifetec customers were also Patterson customers because the bulk of Patterson’s business was from national contracts. On the basis of the evidence at this hearing, the trial court granted a preliminary injunction stopping Edwards from violating the contract.

Edwards appealed, asking only for a decision on whether there was enough evidence to support the granting of the injunction. The appeals court said there was. The question, the court wrote, was whether Edwards had used protectable confidential information gained at Lifetec for his own gain. Lifetec contended that its “open quotes” to buyers constituted protectable information, although not all open quotes necessarily resulted in sales. The court took it one step further, saying the way those quotes were calculated was the real confidential information, as the quotes themselves were not secret once submitted to customers. Edwards’ knowledge of the reasoning behind the bids could give Patterson an advantage in the competitive medical supply industry. The defendants’ arguments that Lifetec should have alleged that Edwards misappropriated its trade secrets also fail, the court wrote, since Lifetec is making no such claim. All of this is sufficient to raise fair questions of fact, the court said, so an injunction was proper until the merits of the case could be decided.

A special concurrence filed by Presiding Justice Robert Steigmann agreed with the outcome, but said the court was incorrect to use the “legitimate business interests” test. This test is three decades old, the justice wrote, but the Illinois Supreme Court had never embraced it and in fact failed to use it at all in its 2006 decision in Mohanty v. St. John Heart Clinic, S.C., 225 Ill. 2d 52, 866 N.E.2d 85 (2006). Because of this, he wrote, the court should have stopped its analysis after finding that the time and territory restraints in the covenant were reasonable. The majority noted, however, that the parties made no argument on this basis.

Continue reading "Scope of Injunctions Enforcing Restrictive Employment Covenants Must Be Clear, Fourth District Decides" »

An interesting case involving enforcement of an employment contract’s restrictive covenant was recently noted by our Illinois covenant not to compete attorneys. Cambridge Engineering Inc. v. Mercury Partners 90 BI, Inc., No. 1-06-0798 (Ill. 1st Dec. 7, 2007). The suit stems from an earlier lawsuit concluded in Missouri in 2001, in which Cambridge Engineering Inc. successfully sued former employee Gregory Degar and his new employer, Brucker Company (legally Mercury Partners 90 BI), to enforce a covenant not to compete signed by Degar. Cambridge then filed this suit against Brucker to recover punitive damages and attorney fees. Cambridge and Brucker compete in the residential and business heating market in the Midwest.

Degar worked at Cambridge as a sales representative starting in 1996, and signed a contract including noncompete and nonsolicitation covenants. The contract restricted him from competing in any way with Cambridge, or soliciting its employees or customers, anywhere in the United States or Canada, for 24 months after leaving. He was terminated in 2001 and was hired by Brucker about a month later as an inside support person rather than a salesperson. Nonetheless, he admitted to using customer contacts developed at Cambridge. Cambridge sued Deger, but not Brucker, in St. Louis and was granted a permanent injunction enforcing the noncompete clause. (At that time, Brucker fired Degar.)

Cambridge then sued Brucker in Illinois for compensatory and punitive damages, for tortious interference with contract. The parties stipulated to limit compensatory damages to attorney fees but said nothing about the punitive damages. The trial court directed a verdict against Cambridge on punitive damages, saying Cambridge hadn’t proven that Brucker’s actions were so outrageous that punitive damages were appropriate. At trial, the president of Cambridge testified that the company believed the contract would prevent Degar from holding any job, even a janitorial position, with any competitor, including in areas where Cambridge does not do business. The jury found for Cambridge on compensatory damages in the amount of $50,000, but Brucker successfully moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the basis that the noncompetition clause was overly broad and unenforceable. Cambridge appealed both judgments against it.

The analysis by the First started by noting that the dispute centered around whether the covenant not to compete was unenforceable under Illinois law. Cambridge argued that the covenant was reasonable on both geographic and activity (despite testimony disputing this), and that the trial court improperly excluded testimony that would show this reasonableness. The court disagreed on all counts. The geographic scope was unreasonable, the court wrote, because it restricted Degar from taking a job with a competitor anywhere in Canada even though Cambridge only had a small amount of business in Canada. This restriction did nothing to protect Cambridge from competitors gaining unfair advantage at its expense, the court wrote. And the evidence Cambridge said was incorrectly excluded would not have changed the court’s decision. Thus, the scope of the covenant was indeed unreasonable.

It next examined the question of the activities prohibited by the noncompete clause, which turned on the interpretation of the contract. However, the court found that the plain language of the contract supports Brucker’s assertion that the contract was overly broad: that Degar may not “engage in any activity for or on behalf of Employer’s competitors,” a phrase that could theoretically bar Degar from taking a job filing papers for a competitor. Furthermore, testimony from Cambridge’s president at trial confirmed this interpretation; he “agreed with counsel’s contention that the St. Louis action was brought to prevent Degar from working for a competitor in any capacity.” Thus, the clause was overly broad and not reasonable, and the trial court’s decision on that issue was also correct.

Continue reading "First District Rules Plaintiff Not Entitled to Punitives in Noncompete Clause Lawsuit" »

A First District Court of Appeal ruling had an interesting lesson for our Chicago noncompete clause attorneys. In Baird and Warner Residential Sales Inc. v. Mazzone, No. 1-07-2179 (Aug. 15, 2008), the First ruled that a trial court needed more evidence in a dispute about a covenant not to compete before it could correctly grant a motion to dismiss. The case arose when Baird & Warner Residential Sales sued former employee Patricia Mazzone and her new employer, Midwest Realty Ventures (doing business as Prudential Preferred Properties). Both real estate companies have multiple branches and more than 1,000 employees in the Chicagoland area.

Mazzone was office manager for B&W’s Lincoln Park office for about 11 years before leaving for Prudential. During that time, she signed a contract that included a covenant not to solicit services from any B&W employees or independent contractors, or people who had left those jobs within the last six months, for up to a year after leaving. This contract contained a severability clause, and the “preface” to the contract specified that it applied “regarding the Lincoln Park office,” although the restrictive covenant referred to “Company.” In 2007, Mazzone resigned from her job and took another running Prudential’s Michigan Avenue office. About a month later, B&W sued for a temporary restraining order and injunction seeking to enforce the covenant and keep Mazzone and Prudential from soliciting B&W employees, alleging breach of contract by Mazzone, tortious interference with contract by Prudential, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage by both parties.

After an injunction and expedited discovery, defendants moved to dismiss because the covenant was overly broad, alleging that it would keep any Prudential employee from soliciting any B&W employee or contractor from any office. B&W contended that the preface restricted the covenant to the Lincoln Park office and affirmatively stated that it did not seek to enforce it beyond that office. In the alternative, they argued that the severability clause should allow that portion to be separated from the rest of the agreement. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, saying the contract’s plain language related to all of B&W’s offices. Plaintiffs appealed this ruling.

The appeals court started its opinion by considering B&W’s claim that the nonsolicitation contract was not improper under the law. It noted that motions to dismiss are not necessarily appropriate in fact-intensive situations like this one, since the rules limit courts to consideration of facts in the complaint. It then turned to the controversy over whether the contract applied to all offices or just the Lincoln Park office and found that there was insufficient evidence. The record does not show enough evidence to determine whether the contract, as written, is overly broad and poses an undue hardship on Mazzone, the court wrote, or negative effects on the public from the restraint of trade. It also disagreed that enforcing the contract would “render Mazzone unemployable,” since she would be free to solicit employees of non-B&W brokers, even within the limited one-year period specified. Thus, the trial court should not have dismissed it without hearing more evidence, the court wrote. It reversed and remanded the case for more proceedings.

Continue reading "Hardship to Former Employee Should Be Considered Outside Motion to Dismiss, First District Rules" »

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" »

A recent decision by the Fourth District Court of Appeal caught the eyes of our Illinois non-compete agreement attorneys because it created a split with other Courts of Appeal that only the Illinois Supreme Court can resolve. In September, the Fourth ruled that a trial court was correct to grant a preliminary injunction to a company suing over a covenant not to compete. Sunbelt Rentals Inc. v. Neil N. Ehlers III and Midwest Aerials & Equipment, Inc., No. 4-09-0290 (Ill. 4th Sept. 23, 2009). Sunbelt sued former sales employee Neil Ehlers and his new employer, Midwest, alleging Ehlers violated restrictive covenants when he took the new job, and Midwest tortiously interfered with the agreement when it hired him.

Sunbelt sells and rents industrial equipment for business and individual use. Ehlers was a salesman there responsible for maintaining a customer base and relationships. When he took the job in 2003, he signed a contract agreeing that he would not, for a year after leaving the job, provide services or solicit business from customers that had used Sunbelt in the preceding 12 months, or customers with whom he had had “contact, responsibility or access to confidential information.” It also forbade him from joining or starting a business “substantially similar” to Sunbelt’s. Both clauses were restricted to designated geographic areas. The contract specifically said Sunbelt would be entitled to an injunction against any breach or threatened breach of the restrictive covenants.

Ehlers quit at Sunbelt in January of 2009 to join Midwest, which rents and sells aerial platforms to construction and industry. Four days after Ehlers left, Sunbelt sent him and Midwest a “cease and desist” letter alleging that Ehlers had breached his agreement. The next month, Sunbelt sued for breach of the covenant and tortuous interference and asked for a preliminary injunction to keep Ehlers from working for Midwest. Finding that the time and geographic scope of the agreement was reasonable, the trial court granted the injunction. Ehlers and Midwest appealed, arguing that Sunbelt had not shown that it had a legitimate business interest test first set forth in Nationwide Advertising Service, Inc. v. Kolar, 28 Ill. App. 3d 671, 673, 329 N.E.2d 300, 301-02 (1975), and thus failed to follow precedent.

The Fourth District disagreed. It started by examining the question of whether the “legitimate business interests” test was valid under Illinois Supreme Court precedent, particularly the recent Mohanty v. St. John Heart Clinic, S.C., 225 Ill. 2d 52, 866 N.E.2d 85 (2006). Although every Illinois appellate court has embraced the test, the Fourth District wrote, its analysis was flawed and the Illinois Supreme Court had never embraced it. In fact, in Mohanty and several other decisions, that court never actually used the test. Instead, the Fourth said, precedent says the validity of a covenant not to compete should be based only on time and territory restrictions in the contract.

The court next took up the argument by Ehlers that the restrictive covenant should be declared invalid because it is overly broad. Ehlers argued that the restrictions were so broad that he is precluded from working for any competitor in a Midwestern city, causing him undue hardship. The court interpreted the language of the contract differently; it said the restriction meant Ehlers could not work for a competitor within 50 miles of a branch of Sunbelt where Ehlers had worked, for a year after leaving. This is consistent with previous time-and-territory decisions on restrictive covenants, the court said. Thus, the contract was valid, meaning that the trial court’s decision to issue an injunction was not unreasonable.

Continue reading "Appeals Court Upholds Injunction Enforcing Salesman’s Covenant Not to Compete " »

In a mutual fund’s shareholder dispute, the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on May 19 that an investment advisor’s fiduciary duty to shareholders does not require that the advisor’s fees be “reasonable” by any legal definition. In Jones v. Harris Associates L.P., 07-1624 (7th Cir. 2008), the circuit affirmed a summary-judgment ruling in favor of the mutual fund manager by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Three shareholders in the Oakmark complex of mutual funds sued the fund’s advisor, Harris Associates, contending that the fees they paid toward Harris’s compensation were too high. The bulk of the opinion (which the majority called “the main event”) concerned section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act, an amendment to the 1940 act added in 1970. That law gives investment advisors at registered investment companies a fiduciary duty to shareholders with regard to any compensation they or their affiliates receive. However, said the Seventh Circuit, “a fiduciary duty differs from rate regulation.... Section 36(b) does not say that fees must be ‘reasonable’ in relation to a judicially created standard. It says instead that the adviser has a fiduciary duty.” The court goes on to note that fiduciary duty is well-defined in trust law and does not foreclose an advisor’s ability to negotiate for compensation.

In doing so, the court disapproved caselaw from Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc., 694 F.2d 923 (2d Cir. 1982). That case requires that “[t]o be guilty of a violation of §36(b) . . . the adviser-manager must charge a fee that is so disproportionately large that it bears no reasonable relationship to the services rendered and could not have been the product of arm’s-length bargaining.”

In addition to the amendment, the plaintiffs’ case relied on multiple parts of the original Investment Company Act, all of which were deemed moot for various reasons by the majority.