Articles Posted in Business Disputes

Buying a landmark often comes with unique challenges people don’t have to worry about when purchasing just any old building. In addition to the location and the features of the building itself, buyers of a landmark also have to think about how they can preserve the value of that building as a landmark, especially once the former occupants have left the building.

The Tribune Tower stands on what is known as the Magnificent Mile and has been a landmark of the city since it was first built in 1925. It has housed the offices and newsroom of the Chicago Tribune ever since and currently bears a sign of the Tribune’s logo along the top of a low-rise section of the building overlooking the plaza. Commuters have seen that iconic logo every day for decades as they drive or ride the train past the building, but apparently they won’t be able to for much longer.

The newspaper’s lease is set to expire at the end of June, but the company says it is planning to move out before then and relocate to the office complex of Prudential Plaza. Instead of overlooking the Chicago River, their offices will look out over Millennium Park. Continue reading ›

An Illinois trial court ruled in favor of our client. The trial court held that the Illinois College Support Requirement for unmarried parents is unconstitutional as violating the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution.

Our client, a very caring father wanted to pay 100% of the college expenses for his daughter to attend the best marine biology programs in the country to which she had been accepted. Her dream was to become a marine biologist. However, with the financial assistance of her mother, the daughter opted to attend a junior college and “party school” in Florida that had even made a list for the top party schools in the State. The Junior College also did not offer a degree in marine biology. Our client declined to pay for junior college tuition because he was shut out of the decision of where his daughter went to school. The Court originally ordered him to contribute to college as required by Illinois for all unmarried parents. We then sought a declaration that the statute was unconstitutional for treating unmarried parents differently and assuming they were not normal parents and would not look out for their children’s best interests as much as married parents.  The Court found the statute unconstitutional and held that divorced or unmarried parents should not be treated differently than married parents.

The Court noted:

While traditional two-parent, married families were the norm in 1978, in 2018 they make up less than half. In fact, if considered in statistical terms, children from either non-married or divorced parents would be considered “normal” based on today’s demographics.

It held in finding the Illinois statute unconstitutional:

The rational basis standard utilized in Kujawinski presumes that never married or divorced couples are less normal and less likely to provide post-secondary education for their offspring than couples who are married, or single parents. While this may have been true in 1978, there is no basis for such a conclusion today.

You can view the Court’s full opinion here. Continue reading ›

The Panamanian government is in dispute with an owners’ association and Trump Hotels.  This was after an attempt to dislodge the Trump name from the Trump International Hotel and Tower Panama occurred.

The matter first came to light when the property owners’ association voted to remove Trump’s management team.  This was in January when  it was alleged that there had been “gross mismanagement, breaches of contract, conversion, and breaches of fiduciary duties.”  As a result, the Public Ministry of Panama is looking into the allegations seriously and as to whether or not any action is warranted.  Accordingly, investigations continue.

Part of the investigation has yielded that the hotels as having a valid contract to manage the property and a Miami based Company do not wish for this to continue.  The Federal Prosecutors have examined accusations over documents being shredded, electrical equipment disputes and of the office being barricaded.  Property owners also publicly have complained of being barred from access during the period of dispute.  When claiming access to property attempts were being made, a statement concerning “hostile attempts” to take over the hotel was released.  They retaliated with their statement condemning the bully tactics employed, indicating that the matter should be settled in arbitration.  Trump Hotels, on the other hand, feel that they will succeed in court proceedings.  Continue reading ›

While most people may not consider the risks associated with someone slipping and falling on their floor, it’s a legitimate concern that property owners have to anticipate. While sometimes an accident is just an accident, other times it may be the result of negligence, in which case the property owner is responsible for all medical damages that resulted from the fall, as well as any psychological distress, mental suffering, and/or lost income.

Eugenie Bouchard is demanding the United States Tennis Association (U.S.T.A.) pay her all of the above as a result of a head injury she suffered after slipping and falling in the locker room at the United States Open in 2015. According to Bouchard, the accident was allegedly caused by a cleaning fluid that was applied to the floor of the locker room, which she claims was dimly lit.

Before the accident, Bouchard was a top-five tennis player who had reached the singles final at Wimbledon in 2014 and the semifinals at both the French Open and the Australian Open. Although she didn’t do as well in 2015, she did take home three victories from Flushing Meadows, with an additional two victories in doubles, but all that was before her 2015 fall.

After sustaining the alleged head injury, Bouchard only played one more tennis game in 2015 and she ended up having to withdraw before completing the second set due to dizziness. Continue reading ›

Environmental groups have sued to stop the Bayou Bridge pipeline after it received construction permits and the green light to start. The construction will take a toll on the environment. This has affected local businesses who used to harvest large amounts of crawfish but now the traps yield dead crawfish.

The purpose of the pipeline is to deliver crude oil to a terminal in St. James Parish. The first phase of the project, which consists of a 30-inch pipeline from Nederland to Lake Charles.

The U.S. Army Corporation of Engineer’s decision to issue the permit for construction followed completion of an environmental assessment, review of its compliance with Section 408 of the Clean Water Act and feedback received during a public notice.

Construction must comply with provisions aimed at protecting nesting periods for birds.  Builders of the pipeline also will have to survey the route for the presence of both active and inactive eagle nests.

Engineers had a permit issued in around mid-December and the people in the vicinity of the Atchafalaya Basin know of its uniqueness to the whole world. Part of nature provides subsistence for the Cajun people.  The water quality is substantially affected.

Environmental groups are trying hard to block further construction by requesting the state court to force the company to turn over records to seize private property or obtain easements on property along the pipeline path. Surveillance records from a company have also been requested.  The suit, called a writ of mandamus, was filed against the pipeline and its president, by the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of Atchafalaya Basinkeeper.

Public purpose and the right to the state’s public laws are being asserted and become grounds for being subject to Public Records Law.  The land that was once public will become for private profit usage with no oversight.  The pipeline process could affect health, the natural environment, and people’s livelihoods.  Multiple parties have a stake in this: from small business operators who harvest food, locals and those who profit.

To challenge the making of the pipeline for violations of environmental law is the starting ground for the attack on a corporation that is said to have a history of violations. The plaintiffs claim the permit granted violates the Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act. Continue reading ›

Jurisdictional issues can affect any case and are most likely to be more common in America where the variances in counties and states are, perhaps, greater than anywhere else in the world.  Such concerns affect all cases in terms of venue and the ties that parties may have to a certain jurisdiction over another.

The death of Charles Manson has been no exception to challenging jurisdiction.  His recent death has to lead to unexpected claims over his remains and the venue for the matter still needs to be decided.

Shortly after his death, two Wills have resurfaced with each one leaving the estate to a different person.  He died at a hospital in Bakersfield, California but those that wish to claim rights reside in a different jurisdiction.  A judge in Los Angeles considers it to be too early to determine who has the right to the remains and the estate of the cult leader that died in November. He was originally have thought not to have any next of kin and now that people claiming entitlement have surfaced, the decision over his remains and estate should be decided in a separate hearing.  The judge will also decide whether the case should be tried in the county where he lived before the crimes that he was involved in were committed, where he was imprisoned before his death or where he died.  Continue reading ›

Family disputes can turn nasty, as can business disputes, but there are few things worse than business disputes between family members.

Recently, Robert F. Tigani Jr. and his brother, Chris Tigani, filed a lawsuit against their father, Robert F. Tigani Sr., for allegedly abusing his position as trustee to divert funds and assets away from his children for his own benefit.

Tigani Sr. is a chairman of N.K.S. Distributors, a franchise of Anheuser-Busch for Delaware that was founded in 1960. The lawsuit alleges he took advantage of his position as chairman, and as trustee of an irrevocable trust that was created by his parents (who founded the company) to ensure the company remained in the family.

According to the complaint, when the trust was created in 1986, Tigani Sr. owned 42% of N.K.S. shares and 58% were set aside to benefit Robert Jr., Chris, and their children, with Tigani Sr. appointed trustee. But the lawsuit alleges Tigani Sr. abused his position to issue himself extra shares of the company, giving him a controlling interest in the distribution company. He allegedly concealed the improper issuance of these funds from his sons, and when they suspected him of misconduct, he allegedly refused to show them company records of the transactions. Continue reading ›