Business Disputes

What Your Business Partner Owes You Under Illinois Law, and What Happens When He Breaks That Duty

June 17, 2026 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

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?

Illinois Minority Owners: How to Force a Company to Open Its Books

June 17, 2026 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

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?

Being Bought Out of Your Illinois Company? Why the “Fair Value” of Your Shares Is Higher Than the Offer

June 17, 2026 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

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?

Sued for Defamation in Illinois? The Defenses That Can End the Case Before It Gains Momentum

May 24, 2026 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

The summons rarely feels proportional to what happened. You left an honest review of a contractor. You warned a colleague about a vendor who had burned you. You answered a reporter’s question, or posted what you believed was true, or simply repeated what half the industry already knew. Now a process server is at the door and a complaint accuses you of defamation, demands a sum with a lot of zeros, and frames your words as if they were a calculated act of malice. The plaintiff is betting that the cost and fear of litigation will make you apologize, retract, and pay before anyone tests whether the claim is any good.

Often the claim is not good. Illinois defamation law is far more demanding of plaintiffs than most people sued under it realize, and several of its defenses are designed to end a weak case early, before it drains a year of your life. We tell clients the truth in both directions. A genuinely false and damaging statement of fact can cost you. But a great many defamation suits are built on opinion, on substantially true statements, on words that carry an innocent meaning, or on a theory that runs out of time. Knowing which is which is the whole game.

Begin with what the plaintiff must prove. A defamation claim in Illinois requires a false statement of fact about the plaintiff, an unprivileged publication of that statement to a third party, some level of fault, and damage to the plaintiff’s reputation. Each element is a place where a case can fail. The requirement that the statement be one of fact, and false, is the one defendants underuse. Continue reading ›

After the Ink Dries: Post-Closing Buy-Sell Disputes That Drain Illinois Dealership Deals

April 26, 2026 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

The deal closed on a Friday. The selling dealer went to Naples. The buyer took the keys on Monday, and by Wednesday was staring at a floor plan audit showing twenty units short, a used-car inventory valued two hundred thousand dollars below the closing schedule, and a working-capital adjustment the seller’s accountant had, in the buyer’s view, quietly gerrymandered. The buyer calls us. So does the seller, a week later, demanding the earn-out the buyer now refuses to pay.

This pattern repeats across Illinois dealership deals. Our earlier post on the five critical clauses every Illinois dealer needs in a buy-sell agreement addressed what the agreement itself must contain. The next battleground is the one that opens after the agreement is signed. Post-closing disputes between dealer principals are where deals go to die, and they fall into three familiar buckets: working-capital adjustments, indemnification claims, and earn-outs.

Working-capital adjustments are the first and most common flashpoint. Nearly every dealership asset purchase agreement includes a true-up mechanism tied to a target net working capital figure, measured as of closing and adjusted within 60 or 90 days. The seller’s preliminary closing statement anchors the seller’s position. The buyer then issues a dispute notice identifying line-item disagreements. If the parties cannot negotiate those, the agreement usually routes the remaining items to an independent accounting firm sitting as arbitrator. The fights cluster around a short list of items. New-vehicle inventory valued at dealer cost versus MSRP less holdback. Aged used units written down or not. Contracts in transit counted as receivables. Warranty receivables from the manufacturer treated as accounts receivable. Parts inventory counted at cost or marked down for obsolescence. In our experience, the buyer who does not send a manager to physically count inventory the night before closing is the buyer who pays too much. The seller who does not require the accountant to sign off on the closing-date balance sheet before wiring the funds is the seller who litigates for the next eighteen months.

A Judge’s Eye View of Your Case: How James DiTommaso’s Appellate Externship Shapes Business Litigation Strategy

February 15, 2026 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Clients call us when they are in a sticky situation. That is usually not the first time something went wrong. The problem has been building. The partner stopped being transparent. The manager started siphoning business. The competitor started poaching customers. The contract got ignored. Then one day it becomes urgent. There is a hearing coming. There is a TRO on the table. There is a demand letter that cannot be ignored. The business owner suddenly needs answers that are both fast and correct.

In those moments, the lawyer who understands how judges think has a real advantage.

Before joining DiTommaso Lubin, P.C., James V. DiTommaso served as a judicial extern to Justice Thomas E. Hoffman of the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, Sixth Division. During that externship, he assisted in drafting opinions and bench memorandums. That experience is not just a resume line. It is a perspective shift. It teaches you what arguments actually move the needle inside chambers and what arguments sound good only to the lawyer making them.

Here is the reality most clients do not see. Judges are not looking for drama. They are looking for a principled reason to rule. They want clarity. They want credibility. They want to understand what the law allows them to do, and they want to do it without creating a mess.

When you have worked inside the appellate process, you learn quickly that the record is the case.

A business dispute can feel like a thousand moving pieces. But the court is going to rule based on what is properly presented, properly supported, and properly framed. That is why James’s externship experience matters in everyday business litigation. It pushes the case toward what courts value: organized facts, clean legal theories, and a timeline that makes sense.

A judge’s view of a contract dispute is not “who is angry.” It is “what does the contract say, what was performed, what was breached, and what remedy is available.” A judge’s view of a fiduciary duty case is not “who feels betrayed.” It is “who owed duties, what conduct crossed the line, what damages resulted, and what evidence proves it.”

That is the difference between storytelling and proof.

James applies that discipline to the cases he litigates. When a client is facing an emergency situation, the goal is not to file something fast and hope. The goal is to file something strong and specific. A motion for emergency injunctive relief only works if the facts are tight, the law is clear, and the harm is real. Judges can smell exaggeration. They see it every day.

The same is true in partner disputes and business ownership divorces. One side often tries to freeze out the other side by controlling information. That is not just unfair. It is a litigation tactic. The best response is not to yell about fairness. The best response is to use the legal tools available and build a record that shows the court what is happening in concrete terms.

A lawyer with appellate experience understands how orders are written and why that matters. The wording of an injunction can decide the next six months of the case. The language of a discovery order can determine whether you actually get the documents you need or you spend months arguing about loopholes. The framing of an issue can decide whether you win a key motion or you lose momentum. Continue reading ›

From the Trial Court to the Illinois Supreme Court: What James DiTommaso Learned Arguing Yakich v. Aulds

February 15, 2026 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Most business owners will never see the inside of an appellate courtroom, and that is a good thing. Appeals are expensive, time consuming, and usually happen after a case has already chewed up months or years. But the mindset of an appellate lawyer, the discipline of precision and the obsession with the record, can make the difference in the trial court long before any appeal is filed.

James V. DiTommaso did not become a lawyer because it sounded easy. On his attorney profile, he puts it plainly: he chose to become a lawyer because he wanted to be like his dad, the person people call when they are in a sticky situation. That is also why his litigation style is direct. When a client needs help, they do not need a lecture. They need a plan.

James has lived appellate pressure in a way very few attorneys ever experience. He argued a case before the Illinois Supreme Court, an experience that changes how you approach every case afterward. It happened in Yakich v. Aulds, a direct appeal that put a constitutional question in front of the state’s highest court. The case centered on Section 513 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, the statute dealing with a parent’s contribution to a non minor child’s educational expenses. The circuit court declared the statute unconstitutional as applied. The Illinois Supreme Court ultimately vacated that judgment and sent the matter back, emphasizing that lower courts are bound by Illinois Supreme Court precedent and do not have authority to overrule it.

The case was also a rare moment in Illinois legal history because it involved father and son lawyers appearing as counsel on both sides of the matter before the Supreme Court. That does not happen in routine litigation. It happens in cases that are serious, well briefed, and hard fought.

There are two ways to look at the Supreme Court’s result. One is academic. The other is practical.

The academic lesson is about stare decisis. In plain English, trial courts cannot decide they no longer like a Supreme Court case and ignore it. The practical lesson is more important for business litigation clients. When you are fighting in court, you have to know what the controlling law is today, not what you wish it was, and you have to build your strategy around it.

That is what appellate experience teaches.

In the Illinois Supreme Court, there is no room for vague arguments or sloppy storytelling. The questions come fast. The justices want to know where something is in the record. They want to know what rule controls. They want to know what the legal consequence is if they agree with you. There is nowhere to hide behind rhetoric. It is precision under pressure.

That same discipline applies to business disputes.

When a partnership fight breaks out, the “facts” are rarely clean. People remember meetings differently. Text messages are interpreted differently. Financial records can be spun. The side that wins is usually the side that turns chaos into clarity. That requires building a record that is defensible, documenting the story early, and anticipating what a judge will need to rule in your favor.

James approaches business litigation the way an appellate court reads it. What did we prove. What did we preserve. What did we make easy for the judge to adopt in a written order. That is not just a style choice. It is strategy.

Yakich v. Aulds also shows something else. High stakes litigation can be personal, but it is never only personal. The case involved a real family dispute, but the legal issue had broader implications because it challenged a statute that affects people across Illinois. In business disputes, it is the same. Your case feels unique, but the judge is thinking about rules, precedent, and the ripple effects of any order. Continue reading ›

Chicago-Kent Built for the Courtroom: Why James DiTommaso Litigates Like Trial Is Tomorrow

February 15, 2026 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

A lot of lawyers say they are “trial lawyers.” Then the case gets real. The judge sets deadlines. The other side files a motion that actually matters. A key witness gets cold feet. The documents tell a story your client does not like. That is the moment when you find out whether your lawyer is built for the courtroom or built for paperwork.

James V. DiTommaso is built for the courtroom.

James earned his J.D. from Chicago-Kent College of Law, and if you know Chicago-Kent, you know what that means. Chicago-Kent is not known for producing lawyers who hide behind the comfort of endless letters and endless “let’s see what happens” litigation. Chicago-Kent is known for its trial advocacy culture. The school’s trial program has been a national leader for decades, and its trial teams have competed and won at the highest level, including National Trial Competition championships in 1988, 2007, 2008, and 2015. That kind of environment changes how a lawyer thinks. It teaches you that credibility is everything, preparation beats improvisation, and the courtroom is not a place to “try something” for the first time.

That mindset is exactly what business owners need when the dispute is not theoretical and the money is not monopoly money.

Business disputes are personal even when the legal issues are corporate. A partnership fight can destroy a company faster than any competitor. A fraud case can shake a client’s confidence in everyone around them. A dealership dispute can trigger lender panic and manufacturer scrutiny. In those moments, you do not want a lawyer who is learning on your time. You want someone who treats litigation like it is a profession, not a hobby.

Chicago-Kent teaches that litigation is a craft.

James’s background at Chicago-Kent was not just a diploma on a wall. He earned a Business Law Certificate, and he was on the Dean’s List. He also served on the Executive Board for the Chicago-Kent Justinian Society. That combination matters because it is the intersection of two worlds that most lawyers do not blend well. Trial focused thinking and business focused judgment. Clients need both.

Here is the problem we see over and over again. A business owner wants an aggressive litigator. But the owner also needs practical advice that does not burn the company down while the lawsuit is pending. Too many attorneys pick one lane. They either posture, fight, and turn every issue into a war, or they hesitate, negotiate too long, and let the other side take advantage of the delay. James’s style is different. The approach is disciplined. The case is built methodically. The pressure is applied strategically. The goal is to win, but to win in a way that protects the client’s business and leverage.

Trial advocacy is not about being loud.

A strong trial lawyer is calm under fire because they know what matters and what does not. They know the difference between a motion that is theatre and a motion that changes the outcome. They know how to pin down facts early so the other side cannot rewrite history later. They know how to turn a messy dispute into a clear story a judge can understand and a jury can repeat.

That is what trial training gives you. Not swagger. Structure.

James brings that structure to the cases he handles at DiTommaso Lubin, P.C. Whether it is a business ownership divorce, a breach of fiduciary duty claim, a non compete dispute, a defamation case, or a high stakes commercial lawsuit, the plan is the same. Build the record. Control the narrative. Force the other side to commit to positions early. Expose contradictions. Then use that work to either settle on strong terms or take the case through trial.

If you have never been through litigation, here is something you should know. The most important work happens long before anyone says “your honor” in a courtroom. It happens when your lawyer is choosing the claims and defenses that actually fit the facts. It happens when your lawyer is preparing you for the deposition you are not excited about. It happens when your lawyer is reading the financial records with the mindset of a cross examiner. It happens when your lawyer is deciding whether to file for emergency relief because the business cannot survive delay. Continue reading ›

Breaking Up is Hard to Do: Resolving Partner Disputes in Closely Held Dealerships

February 14, 2026 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Most dealership groups are built by partners. One person has the operational instincts, another has the capital, another brings relationships, and the business grows. That partnership model works until it does not. When the relationship fractures, the dealership cannot hit pause. Cars still have to be sold. Service lanes still have to run. The factory still expects performance. Every day of internal conflict quietly drains value.

We call these cases business divorces because the pattern is familiar. Trust breaks down. Financial transparency disappears. Meetings turn into ambushes. The majority starts treating the minority like an employee instead of an owner. Then the real damage starts: money moves through related entities, opportunities are steered to other stores, and the partner who helped build the business is told to take a discounted buyout or be frozen out.

Valuation deadlocks and why dealerships are harder than most businesses to price. A dealership is not a simple earnings multiple. You are dealing with multiple profit centers: new vehicle, used vehicle, finance and insurance, parts, service, and often separate real estate and management companies. Blue sky is real, but it has to be grounded in facts, not ego. We see partners deadlock over basic issues like whether rent paid to a related real estate company should be normalized, whether “management fees” are legitimate or a profit siphon, how to value used vehicle inventory, and how to treat manufacturer incentive programs that fluctuate year to year. Without a defined valuation process, the loudest voice often wins, and that is how disputes become lawsuits.

Why Choose DiTommaso Lubin For Your Business Dispute or Fiduciary Breach Case

February 13, 2026 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

The Pedigree Gap

Why Your Lawyer’s Academic Background Matters in the Courtroom Marketing can be bought, but a University of Chicago Law education is earned. When Peter Lubin steps into a courtroom, he brings a level of sophisticated analysis and peer-recognized skill that reshapes the case. Having been named the first “Law Firm of the Year” in DuPage County, we prove every day that elite academic credentials translated into aggressive trial work are the ultimate competitive advantage.

Modern Discovery & E-Discovery