Illinois Limited Liability Company Act

Squeezed Out of Your Own Company? Strategies for Freeze-Outs in Closely Held Businesses

November 15, 2025 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

When Majority Owners Turn on Their Partners

In closely held corporations and limited-liability companies, majority owners sometimes forget that they owe duties to their partners. We see the same pattern again and again: a founder who built a business is gradually cut out of key decisions, denied access to financial information, removed from management, and eventually offered a take-it-or-leave-it buyout at a fraction of what the stake is actually worth.

These “squeeze-out” and “freeze-out” tactics can be subtle—changing compensation structures, diverting opportunities to new entities, or refusing to declare dividends while insiders pay themselves oversized salaries. In more extreme cases, they involve outright fraud: phony invoices to related companies, off-the-books revenue, or manipulated financial statements designed to hide the business’s true value.

We also regularly defend owners wrongfully accused on using freeze-out tactics.

Combining Oppression, Fraud, and Consumer-Fraud Theories

Our firm regularly represents minority owners who have been frozen out of the businesses they helped build controlling owners who allegedly have done that. Depending on the facts, we may bring claims for shareholder oppression, breach of fiduciary duty, common-law fraud, unjust enrichment, and, where appropriate, claims under statutes such as the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/2, when deceptive tactics are used to induce an unfair buyout. We also are experienced at litigating affirmative defenses to these types of claims.

The same kinds of deceptive practices we see in consumer transactions—omitting material facts, presenting misleading financials, and papering over obvious discrepancies—often appear in freeze-out cases. When majority owners present inflated or deflated numbers to justify squeezing out a partner, we treat that as serious misconduct, not “hard bargaining.”

The Role of Forensic Accountants in Freeze-Out Cases

In many freeze-out disputes, the key question is simple to ask but hard to answer: what is the company really worth, and how much value has been diverted? To answer that, we bring in forensic accountants who are experienced in partner and shareholder litigation. They can:

Analyze financial statements, tax returns, and bank records to identify hidden income and excessive insider compensation;
Reconstruct the economic value of the business at key points in time; and
Quantify damages from diverted opportunities, self-dealing, and other fiduciary breaches.

We have worked with experts whose prior cases resulted in courts awarding tens of millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages to defrauded business owners after proving that they were induced into or kept in unfair deals by false financial information. That experience informs how we structure our own freeze-out and squeeze-out cases.

Remedies: More Than Just a Buyout

In some situations, the right remedy is a fair-value buyout of the minority owner’s interest, supervised by the court and informed by independent valuation. In others, injunctive relief to stop ongoing diversion of assets or to restore a client to management is critical. Where fraud or willful misconduct is involved, we also seek punitive damages to deter similar conduct in the future.

Because freeze-out tactics can overlap with libel—such as when majority owners make false accusations about a partner to justify their removal—we are prepared to add defamation claims when warranted. Our experience protecting reputations in offline and online settings gives us additional tools when smear campaigns accompany financial misconduct.

What Sets Our Freeze-Out Practice Apart

Our work in squeeze-out and freeze-out cases stands out because we:

Combine corporate, commercial, and tort theories to put maximum pressure on wrongdoers;
Use forensic accounting early to understand where the money has gone and what the business is truly worth;
Are comfortable litigating cases that involve complex deal documents, multi-entity structures, and overlapping personal and business relationships; and
Understand that for many clients, these cases are about more than money—they are about vindication and the ability to move forward.

That mix of legal and financial sophistication is especially important in closely held businesses, where personal relationships and family dynamics often collide with corporate governance. Continue reading ›

Frozen Out of Your Illinois LLC? 10 Fast Moves When a Co‑Member Locks You Out

October 25, 2025 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Summary: When a co‑member changes the banking logins, blocks your access to the general ledger, or tells employees not to speak with you, it’s not just bad behavior—it’s a legal emergency. Here’s what to do right now.

1) Treat it like a TRO/Preliminary‑Injunction case.
Illinois courts can order interim relief that restores online banking, general‑ledger access, and on‑site access; prevents dissipation of assets; and preserves the status quo ante. To obtain a preliminary injunction, plead a clearly ascertainable right, irreparable harm, a likelihood of success, and a balance of equities that favors you. In member‑managed LLCs, the Illinois LLC Act recognizes equal management rights and fiduciary duties—critical ingredients for the “ascertainable right” showing.

2) Put management and information rights front and center.
For member‑managed companies, the Act imposes duties of loyalty and care and protects access to company information; operating agreements typically echo and expand those rights. Cite 805 ILCS 180/15‑1, 15‑3 and 15‑5 and any contract provisions requiring managers to “keep and make available” company records. This combination supports immediate access orders.

3) Document the choke points.
Log every blocked login, revoked credential, and turned‑away facility visit; note who gave the directive and when. This contemporaneous record helps courts understand the urgency and scope of relief needed.

4) Don’t ignore personal guaranties.
If you guaranteed company debt, a freeze‑out can put your personal assets at risk. In appropriate cases, plead for equitable relief requiring the controlling member to refinance or otherwise secure releases of your guaranties. (Courts evaluate these requests in equity—frame the risk and the practical path to relief.)

5) Consider a fair‑value buyout path.
Oppression and fiduciary‑breach cases often end with a negotiated or court‑ordered buyout. Ask for “fair value,” and be prepared to explain why minority or lack‑of‑control discounts are inappropriate based on the conduct at issue and the statutory framework.

6) Lock down evidence.

Seek orders preserving financial systems, email, and text messages; forbid asset dissipation; and require full electronic production (bank statements, GL exports, merchant accounts).

7) Align the operating agreement with the Act.
Deadlock clauses, bank‑signature provisions, and record‑access language should dovetail with the Act’s default rules. Where the OA helps (or hurts) your position, lead with it.

8) Keep distributions and compensation in view.
Withholding customary distributions or unilaterally changing pay can be oppressive, especially when used as leverage during a freeze‑out. Plead patterns, not isolated events.

9) Propose a practical compliance plan.
Judges like workable, specific orders: who gets what access, by when, and through which systems (bank portals, accounting software, membership or POS platforms).

10) Stay outcome‑agnostic but relief‑specific.
Combine immediate access/injunction relief with longer‑term remedies like an accounting, governance fixes, and (if needed) a fair‑value separation.

Bottom line: In Illinois, freeze‑outs collide with statutory duties and management/information rights. Move quickly and ask for tailored, enforceable orders that get you back inside the business.

Illinois Court Shoots Down Unreasonable Noncompete Agreement – Peerless Industries, Inc. v. Crimson AV, LLC.

March 22, 2012 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

In Peerless Industries, Inc. v. Crimson AV, Llc., the Northern District of Illinois makes clear that while noncompete agreements may be valid and enforceable in Illinois, the terms of an agreement must nevertheless be reasonable.

Plaintiff Peerless Industries Inc. is an audio-visual mount equipment manufacturer that does business around the world. The plaintiff sells its products to distributors who then install them in stadiums, schools and airports, among other structures. In 2007, The plaintiff entered into a supply contract with Chinese manufacturer Sycamore Manufacturing Co., Ltd. The agreement included a noncompete provision, which provided that Sycamore would not make or distribute “Peerless Products”: those designed by the plaintiff or normally sold by the plaintiff under any of its trademarks. The agreement further prohibited Sycamore from selling a “similar product” – one that “in [the plaintiff’s] reasonable judgment, has substantially the same appearance as or reflects or contains any part of the design of any Peerless Product” – for the length of the agreement and one year thereafter.

The agreement terminated in March, 2010. The following May, Defendant Crimson AV, LLC incorporated in Illinois. According to the court, Sycamore pays the salaries of the defendant’s executives as well as their expenses. Defendant Vladimir Gleyzer, Crimson’s managing director, is a former Peerless employee. Later that summer, the plaintiff filed the present action, alleging that the defendants tortuously interfered with the plaintiff’s contract with Sycamore by purchasing “similar products” from Sycamore and offering them for sale on Crimson’s website. Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin the defendants from selling or offering to sell products received in breach of the supply agreement.

Following a hearing on the matter, the court denied the plaintiff’s injunction request, finding that the “similar products” provision of the supply agreement with Sycamore was overly broad and beyond that necessary to protect the plaintiff’s legitimate business interests. In Illinois, the court noted, a noncompete agreement is valid only to the extent that is reasonable. That is, the agreement’s terms must not: (1) be greater than necessary to protect the business; (2) be oppressive to the entity restricted; nor (3) injure the general public.

In this case, however, the agreement at issue barred Sycamore from selling certain equipment, even if the feature of the plaintiff’s product that appears in the similar product is not aesthetically or functionally significant to either the plaintiff’s product or the similar product. The agreement also applies even where it is unlikely that one product could not be distinguished from the other in the marketplace.

LLC Operating Agreement Arbitration Clauses are Only Enforceable Against Those Party to the Agreement

July 6, 2011 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

As a firm of Chicago and Orland Park business attorneys, DiTommaso Lubin handles litigation for companies in a wide range of industries. Our Schaumburg business lawyers recently came across a case from St. Clair county that is of interest to LLC’s and those businesses who include arbitration clauses in their business agreements.

The Plaintiff in Trover v. 419 OCR, Inc. was a member of a limited liability company, Fair Oaks Development Group LLC (FODG) that planned to develop the land owned by FODG. Plaintiff was advised by counsel that the company would benefit from a tax perspective should the company transfer its interest in the land to Defendant 419 OCR, Inc. and allow that company to develop the land. Relying upon that alleged tax advice and the representations of Defendant, Plaintiff allegedly allowed FODG to sell and assign its interest in the land to Defendant 419 OCR, Inc., who later transferred parts of the land to Defendant O’Fallon Group. The sale was executed by a written agreement, but Plaintiff alleged that there was an additional oral agreement between the parties that was never put in writing. Under this oral agreement, Defendants were allegedly to pay Plaintiff a to-be-determined sum of money in addition to the price of the land. Defendants eventually developed the land and made a profit, but allegedly never paid any of the sums from the oral agreement.

Plaintiff then filed a shareholder derivative action on behalf of FODG alleging breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and corporate waste. Defendants filed a motion to compel binding arbitration based upon the arbitration provisions contained within the operating agreement governing FODG. The trial court denied the Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, and in response, Defendants filed for an interlocutory appeal on the arbitration issue.

The Appellate Court performed a de novo review of the motion to compel arbitration because the trial court did not hold an evidentiary hearing or make any factual findings. The Court examined the operating agreements that contained the arbitration provisions and found that, while the land transaction in question fell within the scope of the provisions, Defendants 419 OCR and the O’Fallon Group were not parties to those agreements and therefore were not bound by them. Thus, the Court upheld the trial court’s denial of arbitration for the breach of contract claims as to those two Defendants.

Next, the Court examined whether the claims for breach of fiduciary duty brought on behalf of FODG were bound by the arbitration clauses. The Court found that FODG was not a party to its own operating agreement because no signatories on the agreements indicated that they were signing on behalf of the LLC. As such, the claims brought on behalf of FODG were not bound by the arbitration clause and the Court denied the motion as to the breach of fiduciary duty claims. The Court then reversed the trial court’s denial as to the fraud cause of action because the individual Defendants and Plaintiff both signed the operating agreement and were bound by the arbitration provision contained therein.

Trover v. 419 OCR, Inc. contains important information for limited liability companies and the members of those organizations. The holding in this case indicates that an arbitration clause in the operating agreement of an LLC can only be enforced against those who were party, or are successor in interest to a party to the agreement. Additionally, it is important to note that an LLC itself is not a party to its own operating agreement without express language indicating that it is.

Using Forensic Accountants and Certified Fraud Examiners in Shareholder, Business, Divorce and Commerical Litigation

July 23, 2008 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

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

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

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

LLC Members Owe Company, Manager No Fiduciary Duty, Appeals Court Rules

July 17, 2008 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

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

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

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

Respected Law Professor’s Insights on Corporate Freeze-Out Litigation

July 16, 2008 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

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

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

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