|

You and your partner built this together, fifty-fifty, on a handshake and a shared idea of where the company was going. The split worked until it didn’t. Now you disagree about everything that matters, the strategy, the money, whether to sell, and neither of you can outvote the other. Decisions stall. Good employees notice. The company that took years to build is freezing in place while the two of you stare across the table, each certain the other is the problem.

A deadlock feels like a trap because the thing that made the partnership fair, equal ownership, is now the thing that paralyzes it. Illinois does not leave equal owners stranded. The law gives a deadlocked owner a path out, and it is rarely the mutual destruction each side fears. If you are staring at a 50/50 split that has stopped working, the question is not whether you are stuck. It is which exit serves you best.

What does Illinois consider a corporate deadlock?

Continue reading ›

|

Your partner started a second company. You learned about it from a customer, not from him, and now you notice that the easy jobs still come to your shared business while the lucrative ones quietly go to his. He says there is nothing wrong with a little outside work. You suspect he has been competing with the company you own together, using its people and its relationships to do it. The question is whether the law sees a betrayal or just ordinary business.

In Illinois, partners and co-owners are not strangers dealing at arm’s length. They stand in a fiduciary relationship, the most demanding standard the law imposes outside a trust, and conduct that would be unremarkable between competitors can be a breach between partners. Knowing where that line sits tells you whether you have a grievance or a case, and it is just as important if you are the partner being accused.

What does an Illinois business partner owe his partners?

Continue reading ›

|

You asked a simple question. Where did the money go? You own a piece of the company, the profits that used to reach you have thinned, and you want to see the financials that would explain why. The controlling owner’s answer is a wall. He tells you the records are confidential, or none of your concern, or available only if you drop your objections first. He is betting that you do not know the law gives you a key to that door.

It does. Illinois grants shareholders and LLC members an enforceable right to inspect the books and records of the company they own, and it backs that right with penalties and fee awards when a company refuses without cause. An inspection demand is often the single most useful first move in a partnership or shareholder dispute, because everything else you might claim depends on the facts those records contain.

What records can an Illinois shareholder demand?

Continue reading ›

|

You find it by accident. A vendor mentions a company you have never heard of, and a week of digging shows that your co-owner has been routing the business’s best work through a second entity he owns alone. Or the bank statements show payments to a relative for work no one did. You are furious, and you are ready to sue. Then your lawyer asks a question that changes everything. Is this your claim, or the company’s?

That question is not a technicality. In Illinois, getting it wrong can end a meritorious case before it is heard. Some wrongs done inside a company belong to you personally to sue over. Others belong to the company itself, and you may pursue them only derivatively, by stepping into the company’s shoes after clearing a set of procedural gates. Knowing the difference is the difference between recovering and being dismissed.

Direct or derivative: whose claim is it?

Continue reading ›

|

You own thirty percent of the company, and for the first ten years that felt like a partnership. Then the managing member stopped returning your calls. The distributions shrank and then stopped, though the company is plainly doing well. You are no longer copied on decisions. The manager’s salary has grown to a number that happens to absorb most of the profit you used to share. You are still a member on paper, but you have been pushed to the door without anyone touching the lock.

This is a freeze-out, and the Illinois Limited Liability Company Act gives a minority member real remedies for it. The managing member is counting on you believing that whoever controls the company controls your fate. The statute says otherwise. If you are the frozen-out member, the law gives you leverage the manager would rather you never discover.

What counts as oppression of an LLC member in Illinois?

Continue reading ›

|

The offer to buy your shares arrives as a single page. You built a quarter of the company over fifteen years, and the letter values your stake at a number that would not cover two good years of the distributions you used to take. The controlling owner calls it generous. His accountant has trimmed it once for your lack of control, trimmed it again because the shares are hard to sell, and used a valuation date that happens to fall right after the worst quarter in the company’s history. The message is that this is the market speaking, and that you should take the number before it falls.

It is not the market speaking. It is a negotiating position dressed up as an appraisal. Illinois does not measure a departing owner’s shares by what a stranger would pay for a powerless slice of a private company. It measures them by fair value, a legal standard with decades of case law behind it, and that standard is usually far kinder to the owner being bought out than the first offer admits. If you are a minority owner staring at a lowball buyout, the law is more on your side than the letter wants you to believe.

What does “fair value” mean for a minority owner in Illinois?

Continue reading ›

|

Your hiring process probably uses artificial intelligence right now, whether you know it or not. The applicant tracking system that ranks resumes before a human reads them. The assessment platform that scores candidates on a video interview. The scheduling tool that screens out applicants who cannot work certain shifts. Vendors sold these tools as efficiency. Illinois law now treats them as a compliance obligation with teeth.

On January 1, 2026, Public Act 103-0804 took effect. It amends the Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5, to regulate the use of artificial intelligence in employment decisions, and it applies to recruitment, hiring, promotion, renewal of employment, selection for training or apprenticeship, discharge, discipline, tenure, and the terms, privileges, and conditions of employment. That list covers nearly everything an employer does.

If the pattern of the last decade holds, the plaintiffs’ bar will treat this statute the way it treated the Biometric Information Privacy Act and the Genetic Information Privacy Act: find a technical violation, file on behalf of a class of applicants or employees, and multiply. The employers who fared best in the BIPA wave were the ones who fixed their practices before the first demand letter. This statute offers the same head start.

Continue reading ›

|

The certified letter arrives on a Tuesday, and it is written to sound like a verdict. Your minority shareholder, the one who stopped coming to work two years ago but never stopped cashing distributions, now says you have frozen him out. His lawyer accuses you of oppression, breach of fiduciary duty, and self-dealing, and demands that the company buy back his quarter of the business at a price his accountant built by taking last year’s best month, annualizing it, and ignoring every liability on the books. The letter closes with a deadline and a threat to ask a judge to dissolve the company you spent three decades building. The number at the bottom reads less like a settlement than a ransom.

The valuation a departing owner demands on the first day is almost always the number that fits the case he wishes he had. It is not the case Illinois law gives him. Shareholder oppression is a real claim with real remedies, but the statute that creates it and the decades of Illinois decisions interpreting it leave the majority far more room than the demand letter admits. The owners who come through these fights with the company intact are the ones who learn early how much of the claim is leverage and how much is law.

Illinois gives a minority owner of a closely held corporation a menu of remedies under section 12.56 of the Business Corporation Act, 805 ILCS 5/12.56, when those in control act in a manner that is illegal, oppressive, or fraudulent. The Illinois Limited Liability Company Act, 805 ILCS 180/35-1, gives a comparable remedy to an oppressed member. Dissolution sits at the bottom of that menu, as a last resort. The remedy that usually controls is a buyout of the complaining owner’s interest at its fair value, and that single phrase, “fair value,” is where most of these cases are actually decided.

Continue reading ›

|

The demand letter usually starts with a fingerprint. Your employees clock in and out on a biometric time clock, the way millions of workers do, and a plaintiff’s lawyer has noticed. The complaint says the company collected those fingerprints without the written consent the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act requires, and then it multiplies. Every scan, by every employee, on every shift, across years, becomes a separate violation, each one tagged at $1,000 or $5,000, and the spreadsheet at the bottom of the letter reaches a figure that looks like the entire value of the company. The message is the one every BIPA demand is built to send. Settle now, because trial would be extinction.

That math is built to look fixed. It is not, and since August 2024 it is wrong on its face. The Illinois legislature amended BIPA that month, and the year before, the Illinois Supreme Court had already said that the damages a plaintiff demands are not the damages the statute commands. The company’s real exposure under the law the courts are actually applying today is a fraction of the number on the demand letter, and understanding why changes the entire posture of the case.

BIPA, codified at 740 ILCS 14, requires a business to give written notice and obtain a written release before it collects a person’s fingerprint, faceprint, or other biometric identifier, and section 20 sets liquidated damages of $1,000 for a negligent violation and $5,000 for one that is intentional or reckless, plus attorney’s fees. The Illinois Supreme Court held in Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corporation that a person need not prove any actual injury beyond the statutory violation to sue, which is the holding that keeps these cases alive in state court and the premise on which every demand letter is built. The defense begins where that premise ends.

Continue reading ›

|

The cease-and-desist letter gives you ten days. You wrote a review, or warned a customer, or told an unflattering truth about a former vendor in a way that cost him a sale, and now his lawyer calls it defamation. The letter demands that you retract the statement, take down the post, and apologize, or face a lawsuit seeking damages it sets in the six figures. It is printed on heavy letterhead and written to make you reach for the delete key before you reach for a lawyer. The threat is designed to make silence look like the cheapest path.

Before you take anything down, understand what Illinois law actually protects, because a great many of these letters demand the retraction of speech that no court could ever call defamatory. A defamation claim is far harder to win than the letter lets on, the First Amendment and the Illinois Constitution protect opinion and truth at the threshold, and Illinois has an anti-SLAPP statute, strengthened in 2025, that can turn a bullying lawsuit into a bill the sender has to pay. The letter is the opening move in a negotiation, not the verdict it pretends to be.

A defamation claim in Illinois, as the Supreme Court set out in Solaia Technology v. Specialty Publishing Company, requires a false statement of fact about the plaintiff, an unprivileged publication of that statement to someone else, and resulting damage. The words that decide most cases are “false” and “of fact.” Opinion is not defamation, truth is not defamation, and a statement the law treats as privileged is not defamation, no matter how much it stung.

Continue reading ›
Contact Information
Chicago Office
19 S LaSalle St #702
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 630-333-0333
Mailing Address
17W220 22nd St #410
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
Phone: 630-333-0333 Please direct all mail correspondence to our Oakbrook Terrace address office.
Highland Park Office
189 Whistler Rd
Highland Park, IL 60035
Phone: 630-710-4990
We accept the following credit cards
Credit Cards Accepted
We accept payment via Venmo at: @L-A-LAW
Phone: 603-333-0333
Visit our site: chicagobusinesslawfirm.com

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2026, DiTommaso Lubin, PC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design