Chicago Business Litigation Lawyer Blog

Many people will try to take advantage of the sick and elderly by having them sign away their rights when they are vulnerable. However, when someone in a compromised position signs a legal document, a court of law may choose not to find that document to be binding.

Such is allegedly the case with Harper Lee, the author of "To Kill a Mockingbird", in signing her copyright over to her agent. Eugene Winick represented Lee for more than 40 years. When Winick fell ill in 2002, his son-in-law, Samuel Pinkus, took over many of Winick's clients. Lee has recently filed a lawsuit in Manhattan to regain control of her copyright.

According to the lawsuit, in 2007, Pinkus "engaged in a scheme to dupe" the then 80-year-old Lee into signing over her copyright for "To Kill a Mockingbird" without payment. At the time, Lee was recovering from a stroke in an assisted-living facility. The complaint alleges that, "Pinkus knew that Harper Lee was an elderly woman with physical infirmities that made it difficult for her to read and see". Lee says she has no memory of agreeing to sign over her copyright.
The transfer allegedly secured for Pinkus "irrevocable" interest in the income derived from her book. It also helped him to avoid paying legal obligations to his father-in-law's company for royalties that Pinkus misappropriated.

Although the copyright was reassigned to Lee last year as a result of a separate legal action, Pinkus was allegedly still receiving royalties from the novel as of this year, the complaint alleges. The current lawsuit is asking that any commissions Pinkus has received since 2007 be returned to Lee.

The lawsuit also claims that Pinkus has failed to provide royalty statements in recent years to explain money earned by the book. Additionally, Pinkus allegedly failed to respond to offers by HarperCollins to discuss licensing e-book rights and did not respond to the publisher's request for assistance related to the book's 50th anniversary.

"To Kill a Mockingbird" was published in 1960 and is Lee's only published book. It is considered a classic and has sold more than 30 million copies.

Continue reading "Literary Agent Sued for Allegedly Stealing Rights for "To Kill a Mocking Bird" From Harper Lee" »

Many of us use Facebook "likes" every day to express our feelings and opinions on the internet. In fact, according to Facebook, around 3 billions "likes" and comments are made on the social network site on a daily basis. However, it is still a relatively new form of expression and, as such, might not get the protection of the American Constitution's first amendment.

The issue has been brought before a judge in Hampton, Virginia where a deputy, Daniel Ray Carter, was fired by his sheriff. Carter sued for violation of the First Amendment after he was fired, alleging that he was let go as a result of "liking" the Facebook page of his boss' political opponent during the town's 2009 sheriff election. According to the lawsuit, Hampton sheriff B.J. Roberts said to Carter, "You made your bed, now you're going to lie in it - after the election, you're gone." About five months after Roberts's re-election, Carter was fired, along with five other employees who either supported Carter's opponent or did not actively campaign for Carter during the election.

U.S. District Judge Raymond A. Jackson dismissed the suit, saying that the U.S. Constitution does not protect clicking the thumbs-up button on a Facebook page. According to Judge Jackson, the "like" button is not substantial enough of a statement to be considered free speech. In his decision, he wrote, "Merely 'liking' on a Facebook page is insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection."

An appeal by Carter and his former co-workers is being reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. The American Civil Liberties Union has also filed an amicus brief supporting the effort to overturn Judge Jackson's ruling. To demonstrate the power that a single click can have these days, the ACLU cited re-tweeting, signing a petition, and donating to a campaign online as examples. If the appeals court rules against Carter, the ACLU argues that all of these actions will be ineligible for protection under the Constitution's first amendment. Rebecca K. Glenberg, the legal director of the ACLU of Virginia, told the Washington Post that "Pressing a 'like' button is analogous to other forms of speech, such as putting a button on your shirt with a candidate's name on it." The ACLU argues that, as the technological world grows, we must protect the news ways of communication which will inevitably develop.

Facebook has also come forward in support of Carter and the ACLU, saying that a Facebook "like" is the modern equivalent of putting up a front-yard campaign sign. Facebook will get a chance to argue their side of the case before a three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. The social media company will be allowed three minutes of oral argument when the panel hears the case.

Continue reading "Does Facebook "Like" Button Give Rise to First Amendment Rights? Federal Appellate Court Set to Decide the Issue." »

Our law firm is devoted to protecting consumers' First Amendment rights to truthfully and accurate criticize businesses particularly businesses who advertise heavily on the internet. Consumers should be able to vigorously voice their opinions about car dealers and other businesses who engage in fraudulent advertising and other unfair business practices. Most big consumer businesses now force consumers to agree to secret binding arbitration of disputes in arbitration fora that often are stacked in favor of business or which business funds pay for. This makes online criticism more important as long as the critic attempts to be truthful and honest and isn't acting a business in reckless disregard of the truth. In that regard with we were very interested to see a new posting by Public Citizen on the subject of protecting online criticism.

Paul Alan Levy reports about Public Citizen's recent efforts in a defamation suit allegedly designed to stop citizens from criticizing a carpet cleaning business on Yelp:

You can’t live in the DC area and not encounter the pervasive advertising for Hadeed Carpet Cleaning, from mailed coupons and display advertising in the Washington Post that promise unbelievably low prices, to classic rock broadcast from the “Hadeed.com Studios” and advertising during Washington Capitals games. But regular users of pages about Hadeed on the Yelp web site quickly learn Hadeed’s dirty secret — more than thirty of the eighty-odd reviews posted there complain that the advertised prices are routinely not honored.

Even one of Hadeed’s Yelp admirers, who gave Hadeed four of five stars for the quality of its work, ridiculed the complainers in these terms: “I can give a life lesson to the people who only wanted the $99 special, there is no such thing! Every wall to wall cleaning company uses that as a way to lure you in but no one will charge you $99.” She also gives her secret about how to protect against unannounced price increases from Hadeed: pay in advance!
Apparently hoping to deter further criticism, Hadeed has singled out seven anonymous reviewers as defendants in a defamation lawsuit. It does not deny that its service staff routinely demand higher-than-advertised prices when they show up to do the work, but instead claims that it suspects, based on a mysterious review of some customer database, that these seven reviews were really posted by some unnamed competitor. Unlike some other ISP’s lately, Yelp is standing up for its users’ privacy, and so refused to comply with a Virginia subpoena because (among other reasons) Hadeed never provided any evidence that the gist of the reviews was false. Hadeed moved to compel compliance, and the trial judge, refusing to apply the otherwise-broadly-accepted Dendrite test, ordered compliance because it felt that it was enough for Hadeed to show that the statements “may be tortious.” And when Yelp refused to comply – because Virginia requires non-party discovery recipients to commit contempt of court to get the right to appeal — the court found it in contempt.

In an appellate brief that we have filed today on behalf of Yelp, we make two basic points. First, Virginia should agree with other states that demand both a legal and a factual showing that the lawsuit has merit. In that regard, read carefully, Hadeed’s defamation claim asserts only that the individual reviewers were not really customers, and Hadeed is not defamed by false statements about whether a given defendant was a customer. Nor, indeed, has Hadeed offered any reason to credit its supposition that the seven reviewers were not customers; what evidence there is in the record points in the other direction.

We also argue that a California company like Yelp should not be subject to a Virginia subpoena just because its web site is accessible in Virginia and because Virginia companies like Hadeed advertise on the web site. When AOL was based in Virginia, litigants in other states had to get Virginia subpoenas to demand identifying information about AOL users; by the same token, Hadeed should have to use the normal interstate discovery procedures when it wants identifying information about Yelp users from ISP's in other states.

The work of Public Citizen to protect consumers' free speech rights is commendable. If you cannot obtain a free legal defense to defamation suits, consumers must turn to a private attorney. Often times consumers home owners' insurance provides coverage for defense costs when the consumer is sued for online reviews. We defend consumers in those suits and help them arrange for the defense costs to be covered by their insurance carriers.

Continue reading "Public Citizen Defends Consumers' First Amendment Rights to Criticize a Business On Yelp" »

A kickback by any other name is still a kickback. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. has already paid the price for allegedly giving kickbacks but it allegedly appears not to have learned its lesson yet. After having settled fraud charges based on kickbacks less than three years ago, Novartis is now facing another lawsuit from the government for allegedly giving kickbacks to pharmacies that transferred kidney transplant patients from competitors' drugs to its own.

The civil health care fraud lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan and it seeks unspecified damages and civil penalties. According to the lawsuit, the kickback scheme goes back as far as 2005.

U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said the company allegedly used the "lure of kickbacks disguised as rebates" to turn at least 20 pharmacies into a sales force for its own drug, Myfortic. According to the lawsuit, this illegal behavior cost the public tens of millions of dollars in drugs dispensed by pharmacists who had accepted Novartis's kickbacks in exchange for selling the more expensive drugs.

Novartis's system allegedly opposed the use of a cheaper, generic immunosuppressant drug. The lawsuit claims that the pharmaceutical company found that it was highly profitable to pay pharmacies kickbacks of up to as much as 10 or even 20 percent in exchange for switching patients to Myfortic.

According to the lawsuit, Novartis offered one Los Angeles pharmacist a "bonus" rebate of several hundred thousand dollars in order to get the pharmacist to "shoulder the burden" of switching between 700 and 1,000 transplant patients to Myfortic.

The arrangement violates the federal anti-kickback statute which prohibits the offer or payment of rebates and other inducements for the purchase of drugs or services covered by Medicare, Medicaid or other health program.

Novartis denies the claims and said in a statement that it will defend itself. It said that the investigation into the pharmaceutical company's interactions with specialty pharmacies relating to the handling of Myfortic had been previously disclosed.

The company said, "As a leading healthcare company, Novartis strives to achieve high performance with high integrity. [Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.] is committed to high standards of ethical business conduct and regulatory compliance in the sale and marketing of our products."

Continue reading "New Kickback Lawsuit Brought Against Novartis" »

The Chicago Tribune reports that in addition to allegations of name calling by both lawyers – including “little man”, “fat”, “bald”, and “short” as well as the alleged Brodsky favorites, “moron” and “liar” – there were allegations of physical threats and Mr. Meschino allegedly had to be escorted from the courtroom more than once by deputies.

Joel Brodsky filed a motion on Tuesday in which he claimed that Attorney Meschino was allegedly obsessed with Brodsky’s role in the high-profile Drew Peterson murder case, and reportedly recommended that Meschino undergo a mental evaluation.

As a result of these claims, the presiding Judge removed both lawyers from handling the case.

You can review a brief from the Drew Peterson trial regarding other claims regarding Brodsky here. Brodsky denies the claims and has sued for defamation.

Continue reading "Lawyers on Both Sides of a Lawsuit Removed From the Case By the Judge Due to Alleged Court Room Antics" »

Chicago has long been known for its corrupt politicians. A former executive of the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority (ISFA) claims that the IFSA is no exception in a recent lawsuit. The Authority denies those allegations.

Perri Imer, the former executive director of the ISFA, has filed a lawsuit against former Illinois governor Jim Thompson and the White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf. The lawsuit alleges that the two conspired to have Imer fired two years ago to stop her reforms at the public agency from going through. The complaint alleges that Reinsdorf and Thompson, who was chairman of the ISFA at the time, "sought to silence Perri Imer and to stifle her efforts to protect Illinois taxpayers from Reinsdorf's greed."

According to the lawsuit, Reinsdorf allegedly pressured Thompson to remove Imer because of her success in getting the White Sox to pay $1.2 million in yearly rent to the agency for the use of U.S. Cellular Field. According to the lawsuit, Reinsdorf allegedly had "undue influence" over former Governor Thompson and apparently over all the members of the ISFA Board of Directors who became complicit in allowing Reinsdorf to treat Cellular Field and the surrounding publicly owned lands as his personal fiefdom."

According to the complaint, the public agency used taxpayer money to build and renovate U.S. Cellular Field as well as to build the restaurant next door, Bacardi at the Park. However, most of the revenue from those two facilities has allegedly gone to the White Sox.

The lawsuit alleges that the "highly favorable terms granted to the White Sox in 1998 and intended to last until at least 2029 served to create a sense of entitlement on the part of White Sox Chairman Reinsdorf, who has repeatedly acted as though U.S. Cellular Field was a gift by the Illinois taxpayers to Reinsdorf and his team".

Thompson dismissed the lawsuit as a "self-serving tirade" and both he and a Reinsdorf spokesman denied the allegations.

Continue reading "Former Illinois Governor Thompson Says That Recent Lawsuit Against the White Sox is Simply a Self-Serving Tirade" »

Amidst the many legal and financial troubles it has been facing lately, Apple can scratch one class-action lawsuit off the list. The class-action combined a number of lawsuits that had been filed in San Francisco against the company and dealt with Apple's warranty policy for its iPhone and iPod touch.

According to the lawsuit, Apple allegedly refused to repair or replace merchandise still under one- or two-year warranty if a piece of white tape inside the device had changed color. The tape was supposed to turn pink or red when it came into contact with water. Since said water contact is known to damage electronic devices, Apple customer service personnel were instructed not to repair devices with tape that had changed color.

However, the tape manufacturer, 3M, allegedly said that humidity could potentially turn the tape at least pink. The customer service manual also states that "If a customer disputes whether an iPod with an activated [Liquid Contact Indicator] has been damaged by liquid contact and there are no external signs of damage from corrosion, then the iPod may still be eligible for warranty service."

Although the tech giant admits no wrongdoing, it has agreed to settle the case for $53 million. This has the potential to affect hundreds of thousands of iPhone, iPhone 3G, and iPhone 3GS owners as well as customers who bought the first three generations of the iPod touch media player. Each member of the claim could get as much as $400 although, if there are enough people with claims, it could end up being less than half that much.

This is not the first time Apple has had to contend with complaints regarding its warranty policies. Recently, the CEO, Tim Cook, apologized to China after the state-run CCTV network and Chinese celebrities chastised the company on its replacement and repair policies in the more than 1 billion customer market.

The EU has also repeatedly castigated the firm over its warranty policies and Italy even threatened to close Apple's offices if a warranty concern wasn't addressed.

Continue reading "Apple Settles Breach of Warranty Class Action Over Alleged Misuse of Water Damage Claims" »

While many consider an oral agreement to be as binding as a legal contract, not everyone chooses to see it that way. Bruton Smith, owner of Speedway Motors Inc. (SMI) and Charlotte Motor Speedway, discovered this for himself regarding an agreement he made with Cabarrus County in North Carolina.

According to the lawsuit, Smith agreed to build a drag strip and make more than $200 million in upgrades to the Charlotte Motor Speedway. In return, Concord and Cabarrus county officials offered $80 million in tax breaks. The deal was announced in November 2007 but was never put into writing until the day after the zMax Dragway officially opened in August 2008, three weeks before its first scheduled race.

The contract stipulated that SMI was to spend its millions in infrastructure improvements within three years, but would be reimbursed through property tax breaks as improvements increased the value of the drag strip. Smith rejected the contract and SMI and Charlotte Motor Speedway sued the city in September 2009. Concord was dropped from the case after agreeing to pay $2.8 million and getting land easements. It is a common method used by North Carolina governments to encourage company investment.

SMI's lawyers allege that local officials made a verbal promise in 2007 to provide $80 million in no more than six years. They also allege that the county had a financial motive and therefore cannot defend itself with a local law which protects municipalities from lawsuits.
Lawyers for Cabarrus County on the other hand, claim that the 2007 agreement was "an agreement to agree, which is not an agreement at all". They also said that the fact that SMI built the drag strip and made other improvements before the deal was finalized is not the fault of the county.

The county's lawyers further declare that it would be difficult for the county to come up with $80 million quickly because it is permitted to collect no more than $104 million in property taxes each year. According to the lawyers, that information is public knowledge and so SMI cannot claim that it was blindsided.

The dispute began when Smith gave the orders for workers to start grazing land on speedway property for the $60 million drag strip 20 miles north of Charlotte before obtaining the requisite permits to do so. When the area residents complained about the potential for increased noise, Smith dismissed the complaints. In a 2008 interview, he asked, "Do you have any friends that built a house close to a speedway that didn't know there was a speedway here? Can you imagine? All of you knew there was a speedway here, right?"

When local officials delayed in granting the permits, Smith threatened to build the drag strip elsewhere and move the speedway, which helps to foster a motorsports industry with an estimated worth of $6 billion a year in North Carolina.

It is not clear whether SMI - which owns the track and seven others in Georgia, Tennessee, California, Kentucky, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas - has yet received any of the $80 million it was allegedly promised.

A judge dismissed the lawsuit last year but Smith is now trying to resurrect it. A three-judge state Court of Appeals panel will hold a closed-door discussion to determine whether the lawsuit will be heard by a jury. They are expected to reach a decision within the next three months and, if they decide to allow the case to move forward, it could be appealed to the Supreme Court. If the lawsuit does not move forward, SMI may have to wait as long as 40 years to be reimbursed.

Continue reading "Speedway Motors Litigation Continues" »

Far from solidarity in troubled times, the attorneys for Drew Peterson seemed to turn on each other as soon as their client was convicted. Each blames the other for the loss of the case and the dispute will now begin a legal battle of its own.

The plaintiff is Joel Brodsky, formerly the lead attorney for Drew Peterson in his murder trial, although he has since resigned from the legal team. Steven Greenberg, another member of the legal team who is still representing Peterson, is one of the defendants in the case. The lawsuit is the result of a 15-page letter, which Greenberg wrote and distributed. According to the lawsuit, the letter contains "false and misleading" statements which are allegedly an attempt to defame Brodsky as revenge for Brodsky attempting to fire Greenberg from Peterson's case.

Among other things, the letter calls Brodsky a liar and an incompetent lawyer. One section reads, "You wafted the greatest case by ignorance, obduracy and ineptitude, ... Your effort to blame me is suggestive of a six-year-old changing the rules of the game when he falls behind. ... You are nothing more than a bully." The letter also accuses Brodsky of "single-handedly" losing the trial and provides an unflattering description of his leadership, saying he insisted on the other lawyers calling him "coach".

Allegedly, Greenberg developed a grudge against Brodsky after Brodsky told him to stop appearing on national television during the trial. The lawsuit alleges that this grudge caused Greenberg "to ignore the best interest of Peterson and become irrationally fixated and obsessed with destroying Brodsky".

According to the lawsuit, the letter put Brodsky's law office "in a false light in the public eye" which caused him to lose profits.

Brodsky also named the Chicago Tribune, its parent Tribune Co., Tribune reporter Stacey St. Clair, AOL Patch Media Corp., and Patch editor Joseph Hosey as defendants for publishing the defamatory letter.

Greenberg called the lawsuit "frivolous" and claims not to be worried by it because the "truth is a defense". Tribune Editor Gerould W. Kern released a written statement which said, "We stand behind our reporting and our reporters, and we intend to defend this suit vigorously.
Walter P. Maskym, a Chicago attorney representing Brodsky in the case, said he is confident that Brodsky will win the case and "that his good name will be cleared and his professional reputation restored."

In addition to defamation, the lawsuit is asserting claims for alleged false-light invasion of privacy and violation of the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Continue reading "Criminal Defense Lawyer in Drew Peterson Case Files Libel and Defamation Law Suit" »

Many food and beverage companies are labeling their products "Natural", "100% Natural" or "All Natural" in order to attract more health-conscious consumers. Two such consumers are Lauren Ries and Serena Algozer. Ms. Ries claims she bought an "All Natural Green Tea" at a gas station because she was thirsty and looking for a healthy alternative to soda. Ms. Algozer claims she purchased several AriZona ice teas over the years, but neither plaintiff has a receipt for any of these purchases, nor can they remember the prices.

They filed a class-action lawsuit against AriZona Ice Tea in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the drinks contained ingredients such as high fructose corn syrup and citric acid. According to the lawsuit, these ingredients are man-made products rather than the natural flavorings they claim to be, thereby making the "natural" labels misleading.

AriZona Ice Tea though, was able to provide testimony from expert witnesses that said otherwise. Dr. Thomas Montville, for example, a Rutgers University food scientist, maintained that both these ingredients are natural substances. The beverage company was also able to provide declarations from their suppliers that both citric acid and high fructose corn syrup are natural ingredients.

The plaintiffs' attorneys on the other hand, were unable to produce a single expert witness in the three years of the case, which had been scheduled to go to trial on May 13, 2013. They also failed to respond to contentions that the plaintiffs failed to support their claims for restitution or disgorgement. They pointed to the fact that patents existed for the production of high fructose corn syrup, but the judge refused to take "judicial notice" of the fact. The judge was also unconvinced by the deposition of Don Vultaggio, the owner of Hornell Brewing Company, which supported the plaintiffs' claim that consumers are likely to be confused and misled by the "natural" labels on the ice tea containers.

The lawsuit sought restitution, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. They claimed these under California laws such as the False Advertising Law, the Unfair Competition Law, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Judge Richard Seeborg had partially certified the class for the injunction against the "natural" label, but had refused to certify a class for restitution. Recently, Judge Seeborg found in favor of the defendants and granted summary judgment against the plaintiffs. According to his 13-page order, the plaintiffs "offer not a scintilla of evidence from which a finder of fact could determine the amount of restitution or disgorgement to which plaintiffs might be entitled if this case were to proceed to trial".

The judge also determined that the plaintiffs' counsel could not adequately represent the class and, on those grounds, granted the request to decertify the class.

Continue reading "Court Decertifies AriZona Ice Class Action Which Alleged All Natural Claims Were False" »

The Federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) makes it illegal to send unsolicited advertisements to fax machines. The Act provides that damages in these cases will be equal to the actual monetary loss suffered by the plaintiff or $500 per fax, whichever is greater. In the event that violation of the Act is found to be knowing and willful, the penalty is tripled.
In Standard Mutual Insurance Co. v. Lay, the defendant, a real estate agency, had hired a "fax broadcaster" which allegedly assured that only people who had agreed to receive advertisements would get its blast fax. This turned out not to be the case though, and the subsequent class-action litigation sought the triple penalty of $1,500 for each of the 3,478 faxes, which had reportedly been sent. The case settled for more than $1.7 million.

Meanwhile, the insurer filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration of no coverage. After the underlying action settled, the class representative became involved with the declaratory judgment action. The Circuit Court ruled in favor of the insurer and the Appellate Court upheld that ruling, stating that the TCPA penalties could not be insured as a matter of public policy, since they were punitive damages.

The attorney for Lay argued that it was the nature of the conduct, rather than the nature of the penalty, which should determine insurability. He explained that the insured's conduct was not willful or wanton and did not involve the type of intentional wrongdoing which public policy does not allow to be insured as it would encourage such conduct. The attorney argued that a point by point or "conduct by conduct" analysis is necessary when determining whether conduct is uninsurable as a matter of public policy because it involves willful and wanton misbehavior. The attorney argued that Valley Forge Insurance Co. v. Swiderski Electronics ruled that TCPA damages have the potential to be covered under an advertising injury policy, much like the one involved in the case currently before the Court and that no intentional wrongdoing was involved.

The attorney for the insurer argued that there was an issue of possible breaches by the insured of the policy. The insurer defended under a reservation of rights letter. About four months after the case was filed, the attorney that had been hired by the insurer was fired by the insured. A month or two later, the insured agreed to the $1.79 million settlement with a covenant not to execute against any of the insured's assets. The insurer's attorney thereby suggested that there were questions of a breach of the cooperation clause and a voluntary payment had been undertaken. Chief Justice Kilbride asked the attorney if the insurer knew about and objected to the insured's settlement. The attorney responded that the insurer had not been aware of the settlement.

The attorney for the class representative counter-argued that the insured had the right to settle under the circumstances and that the insurer had certainly known about the settlement.
The Illinois Supreme Court heard these arguments on the final day of the March term and is expected to make a decision in the fall. You can watch the oral argument before the Supreme Court by clicking here.

Continue reading "Illinois Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Junk Fax Insurance Case" »

When determining the legitimacy of restrictive covenants, it is important for judges to consider all requirements of legitimacy and to do so consistently.

In a recent case, two former employees of Reliable Fire Equipment, a company which sells, installs, and services portable fire extinguishers and fire suppression and alarm systems, allegedly violated the non-competition agreement they had signed with their employer. Rene Garcia had been hired by Reliable in 1992 as a systems technician and was later promoted to sales. In 1998, Arnold Arredondo was hired by Reliable as a salesperson. Both signed non-competition agreements in which they promised not to compete with Reliable, either during their employment or for one year after ceasing to be employed by Reliable.

In early 2004, while still employed by Reliable, Arredondo began forming a company which would supply engineered fire alarm and related auxiliary systems throughout the Chicago area. The new company was christened High Rise Security Systems, LLC and Arredondo and Garcia signed an operating agreement for the company in August of that year.

That same month, Reliable's founder and chairman heard of the two employees' movements and confronted them. They both denied it. Arredondo resigned in September and, on October 1, Garcia was fired on suspicion of competition. In December, Reliable filed a complaint against Arredondo, Garcia, and High Rise, alleging that they had violated their non-competition agreements.

Arredondo and Garcia filed a counterclaim, alleging that the restrictive covenant was unenforceable. The court ruled that Reliable had failed to prove the existence of a legitimate business interest to justify the enforcement of the non-competition agreements and therefore ruled for Arredondo and Garcia on their counterclaim. The appellate court upheld that decision and Reliable appealed, sending the case to the Illinois Supreme Court.

The Illinois Supreme Court has said that non-competition clauses in employment contracts are enforceable so long as consideration supports the agreements and the restraints are reasonable. To determine whether the restraints are reasonable, the court uses a three-pronged test: the restraint must be necessary to protect the legitimate business interest of the promisee; it must not impose undue hardship on the promisor or the public; and the scope of the restraint must be otherwise reasonable.

In putting forth this opinion, the Court corrected two recent opinions of the appellate court which did not require a test for legitimate business interest. In Sunbelt Rentals, Inc v. Ehlers, the 4th District Court of Appeals claimed that a court needed only to consider time and territory restrictions when determining for reasonableness in a restrictive covenant. It claimed that the Illinois Supreme Court had never accepted the legitimate business interest test but the Supreme Court said that was a mistaken assumption and that the appellate court had misinterpreted the Supreme Court's opinion in Mohanty v. St. John Heart Clinic as well as other cases.

Having rejected the reasoning in Sunbelt, the Court clarified the proper standard for conducting the legitimate business interest test. According to the Court in Nationwide Advertising Service Inc v. Kolar, an employer will be considered to have a legitimate business interest subject to protection through non-competition employment agreements if two factors are present: the employees must have gained confidential information through their employment; and customer relationships must be near permanent as a result of the nature of the business.

The Illinois Supreme Court though, overturned the Kolar decision and instead put forth that, while those, as well as other factors might be helpful in determining the question of reasonableness and enforceability, any attempt to file a complete list of factors would be futile or would immediately become obsolete. Rather, the court maintained that determining the existence of a legitimate business interest will depend upon the totality of the circumstances of the individual case.

An employment attorney who represents management, said the decision is good for employers because it actually broadened the enforceability of non-competition agreements. Under the broader standard of considering "the totality of the facts and circumstances of the individual case", employers could argue that the company's reputation or goodwill are worth protecting with restrictive covenants.

Continue reading "Illinois Supreme Court Allows for More Type of Circumstances to Determine That Non-Compete Agreement is Enforceable in Reliable Fire Equipment Case -- Our Chicago Business Lawyers Handle Non-Compete Lawsuits Throughout the Chicago Area" »

This blog has recently discussed the matter of Johnson & Johnson's faulty hip implants. The Articular Surface Replacement (ASR) was released in the United States in 2005 and recalled in 2010. It is now the subject of more than 10,000 lawsuits filed against Johnson & Johnson. The first of these to go to trial was in Los Angeles, California and the jury recently decided in favor of the plaintiff.

Loren Kransky, a retired prison guard, was not supposed to be the first of the 10,000 cases to go to trial. He was diagnosed with terminal cancer though, and his case was moved up. The jury deliberated for five days before finding the device faulty and awarding Mr. Kransky $338,000 for his medical bills and $8 million for his pain and emotional suffering. They decided against issuing punitive damages because they did not believe that DePuy acted with fraud or malice.
Johnson & Johnson says it will appeal the ruling and it disputed the decision that the device had a flawed design.

The all-metal device's design caused the cup and ball to strike against each other as the patient moved, shedding metallic debris into the body as it did so. The debris inflamed and damaged the surrounding tissue and bone, causing pain and, in some cases, permanent injuries.
All-metal implants have become mostly obsolete because most of them suffered from similar flaws. However, data suggests that the ASR was much worse than competing products. An internal Johnson & Johnson document for example, showed that close to 40% of patients who received the ASR would need to undergo a second operation within five years to have the device removed or replaced.

Traditional artificial hips on the other hand, made of metal and plastic, are expected to last at least 15 years before needing replacement. The normal replacement rate for early unexpected failures after five years is about 5%.

Experts have speculated that Johnson & Johnson will spend billions to resolve all of these lawsuits. If juries continue to award damages in amounts similar to the one they gave Mr. Kransky, the speculations will no doubt prove accurate enough. Thousands of the individual cases have been consolidated into one large proceeding in a Federal District Court in Ohio. That should simplify matters somewhat and speed up the process. A resolution of that action could also provide a framework for settling the bulk of the cases and determining awards to patients.

Continue reading "Jury Renders Verdict Against Johnson & Johnson in First Allegedly Defective Hip Replacement Implant to go to Trial" »

The age of emails has made it more difficult to get away with certain things. One might find it more difficult for example, to insist on one belief or attitude if he has been found to have said the opposite in an email. Such is the case for Ron Johnson, the former head of retail at Apple and now the chief executive of J.C. Penney. He has said that, because he believes in "perfect integrity" he would never ask a person to breach a contract.

However, he engaged in discussion with Martha Stewart to sell some of her items in J.C. Penny stores, despite Ms. Stewart having an exclusive contract with Macy's. Mr. Johnson has reportedly tried to get around the contract by claiming that there would be independent Martha Stewart stores within J.C. Penney stores.

While independent stores are allowed under the Macy's contract, J.C. Penney has not moved to lease space to Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia (MSLO). Instead, Mr. Johnson testified in court that J.C. Penney, and not MSLO, would set prices for the merchandise, decide when it would be promoted, employ the people who sold the goods, own the goods, source the goods, book the sales, bear the risk and own the shop, J.C. Penney nonetheless insists that any space displaying the Martha Stewart mark and containing Martha Stewart merchandise qualifies as an MSLO store.

Despite his insistence that he is not inducing Ms. Stewart to breach her contract with Macy's, Mr. Johnson admitted in an email to Ms. Stewart that her contract with Macy's was "a major impediment" to their deal to sell her goods in J.C. Penney stores. In another email, he said, in reference to Ms. Stewart, "the ball is in her court now to talk to Macy's about a break in a tight, exclusive agreement they have with her." He also reportedly said that the "Macy's deal is key. We need to find a way to break the renewal right in spring 2013."

One person was apparently key to bringing about the J.C. Penny deal. That person was William Ackman, the activist investor whose hedge fund is J.C. Penney's largest shareholder. After the deal was announced, Mr. Johnson wrote to Mr. Ackman, "We put Terry in a corner. Normally when that happens and you get someone on the defensive, they make bad decisions. This is good."

The emails emerged in a New York courtroom where Macy's has accused J.C. Penney of inducing Martha Stewart to breach her contract with Macy's. Macy's is also attempting to block its competitor from opening Martha Stewart stores in J.C. Penney locations.
Legal experts have been surprised that this case has made it to trial at all, since the contract itself seems fairly straightforward. Martha Stewart herself told the judge, Justice Jeffrey K. Oing of New York State Supreme Court, "I keep looking at this entire episode of this lawsuit wondering why it isn't - it's a contract dispute. an understanding of what is written on the page, and it just boggles my mind that we're sitting in front of you."

The judge agreed and ordered the parties to pursue mediation to resolve the matter.
Macy's continues to promote Martha Stewart products with the tag line "Only at Macy's."

Continue reading "Emails Becoming Smoking Gun Evidence in J.C Penney" »

After the seller of a business sued the buyer to enforce a promissory note, signed as part of the sale, the buyer asserted a defense of fraudulent inducement in Bu v. Sunset Deli Park of NY Corp, et al. The buyer alleged that the seller misrepresented the weekly income of the business prior to the sale. The New York Supreme Court in Brooklyn denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the defendants had raised sufficient issues of fact as to their fraud defense.

The plaintiff, Su Nam Bu, sold her deli business to defendant In Suk Cho for $220,000 in September 2010. The stock purchase agreement executed by the parties stated that Cho would pay Bu $1,000 upon signing the agreement, and $49,000 at closing. Cho signed a promissory note on September 27, 2010 for the remaining $170,000, in which she would pay thirty-six monthly installments beginning in March 2011, plus a lump sum payment of $50,000 by September 15, 2012. A security agreement, or “chattel mortgage,” signed by the parties pledged the deli’s property, inventory, accounts receivable, equipment, and fixtures as collateral for the promissory note.

Cho made six payments on the note, but the seventh and eighth payments allegdly bounced. Bu filed suit to enforce the note. Cho answered with a fraudulent inducement defense, claiming that Bu represented the deli’s weekly income as $15,000 to $17,000 prior to the sale, but Cho found it to be an average of $11,000 to $12,000 upon taking over its operations.

Continue reading "Allegations of Fraud in the Sale of a Business Cause Court to Deny Summary Judgment for Seller in Suit to Enforce Promissory Note - Bu v. Sunset Park Deli of NY" »

When things go wrong in the operating room, it can sometimes be difficult to discern who the real perpetrator is. In the case of thousands of hip implants designed and sold by Johnson & Johnson, the issue is with the company producing and selling the implants, not the hospital or the doctor. Andrew Ekdahl, appointed in 2011 to head the company's troubled DePuy Orthopaedics division after the flawed implant had been recalled, tried at first to say that it was not the design that was flawed. Rather, he argued that the surgeons were not implanting them correctly.

However, there is much evidence which allegedly points to the contrary. Before it was sold in the U.S., the device (the Articular Surface Replacement, or A.S.R.) was used in other countries for an alternative hip replacement procedure called resurfacing. It was not used in the United States because the Food and Drug Administration would not pass it due to concerns about "high concentration of metal ions" found in the blood of patients who had received the device.
Mr. Ekdahl, head of the marketing team in charge of the device at the time, failed to disclose this information when marketing the device outside of the United States. When a news article appeared last year about the FDA's ruling, Mr. Ekdahl issued a statement that any implication that the FDA had determined there were safety issues with the A.S.R. was "simply untrue". In 2009, the FDA was still asking the company for more safety information regarding the hip implant version which was being used in the United States.

Since the A.S.R.'s introduction to the U.S. in 2005, more than 10,000 lawsuits have been filed against DePuy regarding the device. The first of these cases to go to trial is currently being fought in court in Los Angeles. Recently, portions of Mr. Ekdahl's videotaped testimony was shown for the jury. In the video, when pressed as to whether DePuy decided to recall the A.S.R. due to safety issues, Ekdahl insisted that the company did it "because it did not meet the clinical standards we wanted in the marketplace."

Despite that assertion, Mr. Ekdahl and other DePuy marketing executives all allegedly publicly stated at the time that the device was performing extremely well. Internal documents on the other hand, conflict with those statements. The documents have recently been made available to the public as a result of the litigation.

Included in these documents is a statement made in 2008 by Dr. William Griffin, a surgeon who served as one of DePuy's top consultants. He allegedly told Mr. Ekdahl and two other DePuy marketing officials that he had concerns regarding the cup component of the A.S.R. and that he believed it should be "redesigned".

Before the device was recalled in 2010, DePuy was aggressively promoting it in the U.S. as a breakthrough device and implanting it into thousands of patients. Yet internal DePuy projections estimated that it would allegedly fail in 40% of patients within five years, a rate eight times higher than normal.

According to Mr. Ekdahl's testimony, he did participate in a meeting that resulted in a proposal to redesign the A.S.R.'s cup, but the plan was dropped. The reasoning used was that sales of the device did not justify the expense.

Continue reading "Video Taped Testimony Of Johnson & Johnson Employee Sheds Light on Hip Replacements Alleged Defects" »

While the internet boom led to a lot of money in a very short amount of time for many people and businesses, it is important to remember that developing a business and making business deals are two very different things. The makers of Dragon Systems, a company that sold speech recognition software, learned this the hard way after they sold the company to Lernout & Hauspie in exchange for $580 million in Lernout stock. The deal was made in 2000 and, in 2001, Lernout's accounting was exposed as a huge fraud. The company collapsed into bankruptcy, taking with it Dragon's shareholders, including James and Janet Baker, the founders of Dragon and owners of 51% of its stock.

Since then, the Bakers have spent the better part of the past 12 years in litigation against several parties, taking about $70 million in court. In 2009, they turned their legal sights on Goldman Sachs, who had helped negotiate the deal. According to the Bakers, the advice they were given came from a team of four investors who they referred to as the "Goldman 4". Their testimony presented this team as a group of inexperienced young bankers who had failed to properly perform their jobs. Their inadequacies allegedly cost the Baker's a fortune while making a pretty $5 million for Goldman Sachs.

The Goldman Sachs side however, tells a very different story. Their financial engagement letter, which was heavily negotiated by high-powered lawyers on both sides, required that it provide nothing more than "financial advice and assistance in connection with the transaction". As an investment bank, its job did not include that kind of research and due diligence. According to Goldman Sachs, that part of the deal was up to Dragon and its accountants. The firm was responsible only for coordinating the sale, negotiating the price and evaluating growth prospects for Lernout.

In its briefs, Goldman refuted the depiction of the "Goldman 4". During the trial, the firm provided testimony saying that the Bakers were in a rush to sell Dragon, in part because it was in financial trouble. (Dragon was later sold out of the Lernout bankruptcy for $33 million). Goldman Sachs also pointed out that there were warning signs about Lernout, including news reports about Lernout's questionable accounting practices. Goldman even provided a memo to Dragon warning that, for these reasons, it should conduct extensive research on Lernout before making the deal.

One of the "Goldman 4", Richard Wayner, testified voluntarily in order to clear his name. He testified that, after Goldman Sach's memo warning Dragon about the possible risks involved in selling to Lernout, he had "a very heated conversation" with Ellen Chamberlain, Dragon's CFO. In this conversation, Chamberlain allegedly said that "Dragon did not want to do this additional level of detail."

Other problems included Dragon choosing to take an all-stock deal instead of the standard half-stock and half-cash. This was arranged during a meeting which did not include Goldman Sachs (the bank says it was never invited, whereas the Bakers called the bank a no-show). Once the stock was received, the Bakers allegedly did not take steps to hedge the Lernout stock they received, even after they were advised to do so.

After 16 days of trial, the jury sided with Goldman Sachs on all counts and also found that the Bakers had breached their fiduciary duties to the board in failing to inform it of Lernout's issues.

Continue reading "Jury Sides With Goldman Sachs in Dragon Lawsuit" »

With all the debate raging around healthcare these days, cases like this one must be particularly harmful to the reputation of companies like Hospital Corporation of America (HCA).

It is common practice for profitable hospital chains to buy community hospitals to convert to profit status. These purchases typically include an agreement for the purchaser to spend money to fix up the community hospitals and spend a certain amount on charitable care in the community.

In 2003, HCA purchased twelve hospitals in the Kansas City area from Health Midwest for $1.125 billion. As part of the deal, HCA agreed to spend $300 million in capital improvements to the hospitals in the first two years and an additional $150 million in the three years after that. The hospital chain also agreed to maintain the levels of care which had previously been provided to low-income members of the community for ten years.

The Health Care Foundation of Greater Kansas City is a nonprofit organization which was created from the proceeds of the sale of the hospital. When they received their first report from HCA in 2004, they allegedly realized the company was already behind in their promised payments.

Of the $300 million that was supposed to have been spent in the first two years, records allegedly indicated that only $50 million had been spent.

HCA’s reports also allegedly indicated that the amount of charitable care provided in their inner-city hospital had fallen while the level of charitable care provided at the more affluent suburban hospital had gone up dramatically.

The foundation repeatedly asked HCA for an explanation but, when they received none, they finally filed a lawsuit against the health care company in 2009.

In the trial, HCA argued that it had met its obligation to spend money on hospitals by building two new hospitals rather than repairing the older facilities. However, Judge John Torrence of Jackson County Circuit Court decided that the agreement had specifically called for improvements to the existing hospitals, not the construction of new hospitals. He therefore ruled that HCA stilled owed $162 million of the $300 million it had agreed to spend between 2003 and 2005. He then named a court-appointed forensic accountant to determine whether HCA had provided the charitable care it had agreed to provide.

In his ruling, the judge said HCA’s own written statements included “differing amounts” of money spent on charitable care. One HCA report said it had provided $48 million in charitable care to the community in 2009 while another report on its Web site claimed that it had provided more than $87 million. The annual report to the foundation, on the other hand, said it had provided $185 million in charitable care that year.

When asked about the widely differing numbers, neither the president of HCA’s Midwest division nor other HCA executives could offer an explanation.

The $162 million will be paid to the foundation, which will use it to create grants to provide care for uninsured and under-insured families in the area. It is unclear whether the spending on improvements for the local hospitals will take place.

But HCA may end up required to cough up even more than the $162 million paid to the foundation, depending of what the court-appointed accountant discovers. Paul Seyferth of Seyferth Blumenthal & Harris, which represents the foundation, speculates that the HCA will “have a tremendously difficult time convincing anybody that they spent what they claim they spent”.

Continue reading "HCA Required to Pay For Care to Indigents After Court Finds it Breached an Agreement to Provide Such Care" »

Super Lawyers named Chicago and Oak Brook business trial attorneys Peter Lubin and Vincent DiTommaso Super Lawyers in the Categories of Class Action, Business Litigation and Consumer Rights Litigation. DiTommaso-Lubin's Oak Brook and Chicago business trial lawyers have over a quarter of century of experience in litigating complex class action, consumer rights and business and commercial litigation disputes. We handle emergency business law suits involving injunctions, and TROS, covenant not to compete, franchise, distributor and dealer wrongful termination and trade secret lawsuits and many different kinds of business disputes involving shareholders, partnerships, closely held businesses and employee breaches of fiduciary duty. We also assist businesses and business owners who are victims of fraud.

Vincent L. DiTommaso

online at

visit superlawyers.com

Peter S. Lubin

online at

visit superlawyers.com

DiTommaso-Lubin's Wheaton, Naperville, and Aurora litigation attorneys have more than two and half decades of experience helping business clients unravel the complexities of Illinois and out-of-state business laws. Our Chicago business, commercial, class-action and consumer 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 successfully as possible, helping business clients protect their investments and get back to business as usual. From offices in Oak Brook, near Aurora and Elgin, 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 class action attorneys and Chicago business trial lawyers, please call us toll-free at 1-877-990-4990 or contact us through the Internet.

Once again the issue of what is required to certify a class for class-action litigation has been battled in court. In this case it went up to the Montana Supreme Court, which sided with the plaintiffs and agreed to certify the class.

The case involves several property owners along the shoreline of the Flathead River in Montana who are going to court for erosion against the sides of the lake caused by the Kerr Dam keeping the lake at artificially high levels. According to the lawsuit, the lake reached peak elevation levels of 2,980 feet before the dam was built in 1938. Now the Dam keeps the lake at 2,983 feet, which is causing severe erosion to the sides of the lake and widening its "footprint" particularly during fall storms. While the amount of erosion caused by the high levels might be deemed reasonable when considering the recreational needs of shoreline property owners and businesses in the summer, the degree of erosion occurring when the lake's level is kept artificially high into October and November could be deemed unreasonable.
Initially, Flathead District Judge Kitty Curtis denied certification of the class, saying that the cause of the erosion would need to be shown on a property-by-property basis around the lake and on parts of the Flathead River affected by the lake levels.

The state Supreme Court disagreed, saying that damage caused by the dam over the years has to be considered collectively because the lake can only be maintained at singular elevations, and those elevations cannot be changed for particular lakeshore properties. The liability of the defendants on the other hand, will have to be determined separately, as will the damages for each property. The two defendants are Montana Power Co. and PPL Montana. Shoreline easements granted to the dam operator when the dam was built provide protections for that operator.

The case has gone to the Supreme Court for review three times since litigation got under way in 1999. This most recent ruling defines the "class" as anyone who has owned property on the lake or certain portions of the river since November 1991. Due to that very large range, the class includes about 3,000 properties and could include multiple owners of each property.
Since the state Supreme Court's ruling, the class-action lawsuit is going back to the Flathead District court, which will schedule hearings for 2013. Jamie Franklin, a Chicago-based attorney who is arguing the case on behalf of the plaintiffs, says he is ready for the hearings to proceed.
This ruling demonstrates another victory for class-action litigation. At a time when courts and judges across the country are finding reasons not to certify class actions and contracts are making it more difficult for consumers to bring class action litigation to the courts, decisions like these seem to be getting more rare.

Continue reading "Montana Supreme Court Approves Class Certification for Property Owners Effected by Kerr Dam" »