Chicago Business Litigation Lawyer BlogSuper Lawyers named Chicago and Oak Brook business trial attorney Peter Lubin a Super Lawyer 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.
Articles Posted in Business Disputes
Business Dispute Alleges Mismanagement at Well Known Chicago Car Dealership
Business partnerships can be tricky. When running a business, it is important to remember that there is a difference between the profits that go to pay the owners’ salaries and the money that gets invested back into the company. If one owner takes money from the company’s funds to pay for his personal expenses, he is doing a disservice to the business as well as to his business partner. Illinois law allows for the harmed owner to bring the matter to court and allege violations of Illinois corporate and partnership law and under the right circumstances seek attorneys, interest and punitive damages.
Famed local car dealer, Al Piemonte is known for promoting his dealerships in long-running television advertisements is the subject of claims of mismanagement by one of the alleged owners of his Melrose Park dealership. Piemonte owns three car dealerships in the Chicago area. Todd O’Reilly, who alleges he is a co-owner of Piemonte’s Ford dealership in Melrose Park, has recently filed a lawsuit in Cook County court against his business partner, accusing him and his third wife, Rosanna, of grossly mismanaging the company. According to the lawsuit, the successful car dealership is currently “sitting on more than $6 million in cash”. Piemonte has allegedly been using that money to fund personal expenses for himself and his family, including his adult daughter’s cell phone bill and a Mercedes for his second wife. Piemonte denies all of the claims in the lawsuit.
The complaint alleges that the company’s money has been used to pay for Piemonte’s personal credit card bills and to provide health insurance for relatives of Piemonte who have never worked for the company. Piemonte also allegedly used company money to pay for repairs on a car belonging to a family member who lives out of state and has no affiliation with the business. Additionally, Piemonte allegedly used company money to pay for pest-control treatments in his home and his sister-in-law’s home.
The complaint alleges that O’Reilly “has observed Piemonte use (the business’) money to pay for various personal expenses including clothes, massages, country club memberships, and the costs associated with remodeling his condo”. These claims must be litigated and proven.
O’Reilly’s original partnership with Piemonte allegedly allows him to purchase Piemonte’s majority share in the company for book value upon his death. After a series of recent hospitalizations and medical procedures, the 82-year-old Piemonte allegedly began to rethink the arrangement. At Rosanna’s urging, Piemonte allegedly approached O’Reilly to discuss modifying the terms of the business partnership. When O’Reilly allegedly refused, the complaint alleges that the Piemontes began allegedly excluding him from meetings and barring him from the sales floor and the service department. The lawsuit claims that the Piemontes want Rosanna’s son to take over the business instead of selling Piemonte’s shares to O’Reilly. O’Reilly has stated that he has no intention of parting with his shares in the company and that he has filed the lawsuit in order to protect his financial interests in the company.
The lawsuit alleges that the dealership “is being grossly mismanaged by Piemonte and Rosanna” and that “Piemonte has systematically controlled and used the corporation for the benefit of him and his family members … In doing so, Piemonte has been using (the dealership) as his personal piggy bank.” Piemonte denies these claims.
The lawsuit is seeking to have Piemonte repay all of the money he allegedly took from the company to pay for personal expenses; claims which he has denied. The lawsuit also asks for the court to appoint a custodian or receiver to oversee the business and on an emergency basis but Chancery Judge Neil Cohen denied the request for an appointment immediately leaving that issue perhaps open to further litigation.
New Jersey Supreme Court Requires Mediated Settlement to be in Writing
While courts usually use the law to determine who has the right in a case, supreme courts can sometimes use a case as motivation to create new laws or to modify existing laws. In a recent case, the New Jersey Supreme Court did both of these things. The case, Willingboro Mall v. Franklin Avenue, involved a pre-existing law which the court used to rule in the case. However, the court determined that, in future cases, a slightly different set of standards would be used.
The case involved the sale of a mall which was handled in mediation. However, the settlement was never put in writing before the mediation closed. A few weeks after the settlement, Willingboro rejected the settlement and Franklin filed a motion to enforce the settlement. In his filing, Franklin included certifications from its attorney and the mediator. Rather than filing a motion to dismiss the case based on breach of mediation confidentiality, Willingboro filed an opposing motion in which it included certification from its manager regarding the substance of the parties’ discussion during mediation. During discovery, both Franklin and Willingboro agreed to waive any issues of confidentiality concerning the mediation process.
A four-day hearing followed, during which testimony was given from the mediator as well as Willingboro’s manager and attorney. However, halfway through the hearing, Willingboro changed its mind and moved for an order to expunge “all confidential communications” which had been disclosed and to bar any further disclosures regarding the mediation. The court ruled, however, that Willingboro had already waived its right to confidentiality and the hearing proceeded. At the end of the hearing, the trial court determined that the settlement was binding and ruled to enforce it, “[even] though the [settlement] terms were not reduced to formal writing at the mediation session.”
Willingboro appealed the decision until it reached the New Jersey Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the rulings of the lower courts, enforcing the settlement. In determining a breach of confidentiality, the Court considered the rule governing mediation which states that “an agreement evidenced by a record signed by all parties to the agreement is an exception to the mediation-communication privilege.” Although this rule does not specify that the agreement must be made in writing, it does require some sort of documentation of the agreement, whether written or on tape, to be signed by all parties involved in the mediation. Given that there was no such signed record, the court ruled that this exception did not apply in the current case.
Willingboro’s attempt to dismiss the case based on this rule was therefore rejected.
Although the court agreed that the testimony of the mediator was a breach of confidentiality, it found that Willingboro had waited too long before objecting to the breach. The court further rejected Willingboro’s assertions that its own disclosures were permitted, but that Franklin’s disclosures consisted a breach of confidentiality.
However, in order to avoid such confusion from resulting in similar lawsuits in the future, the New Jersey Supreme Court added that, from now on “if the parties to mediation reach an agreement to resolve their dispute, the terms of that settlement must be reduced to writing and signed by the parties before the mediation comes to a close” in order to be enforced.”
Sands Casino and Former Manager Trade Accusations
Firing an employee is always a delicate matter. Not only are wrongful termination lawsuits a possibility, but there’s always the possibility that the employee has some information on the company which might be less than flattering. In a recent lawsuit, Steven Jacobs alleges he was wrongfully terminated by Sands China Ltd. as their chief executive officer. He also claims to be in possession of certain incriminating documents which Sands China might prefer not be revealed in a court of law.
The documents consist of about 40 gigabytes of information, which Sands says that Jacobs took “surreptitiously” when he was fired in 2010. The information includes three reports prepared by Steve Vickers of International Risk Ltd. The reports allegedly featured the investigation of “certain Macau government officials” and others, according to the letters sent by Sands’s lawyers to Jacobs’s lawyers, asking for the return of the documents.
Jacobs alleges that the reports were commissioned by Sands and include incriminating information “on foreign government officials, as well as individuals with whom they were doing business that were suspected of having ties to Chinese organized crime.”
Jacobs alleges that his employment with Sands was wrongfully terminated after he had disagreements with Adelson, Sands’s majority owner and chairman. The disputes include arguments over what Jacobs alleges were illegal demands that secret investigations be conducted of Macau government officials for information which Sands could then use as leverage against unfavorable regulations.
After Jacobs made these allegations, the U.S. Justice Department and Securities and Exchange Commission opened investigations to determine if Adelson’s company violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. This Act bars any company with operations in the U.S. from making improper payments to foreign officials in order to win or maintain business.
Although Sands denies Jacobs’s allegations, it did admit a few months ago that it had found likely violations of the books, records, and internal provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Around the same time, Adelson said in a declaration that the investigation had been commissioned by Jacobs, not by the company. Adelson claims that he knew nothing of the investigation until after Jacobs had been fired. In his declaration, Adelson states, “I never asked or authorized Jacobs to conduct a private investigation or ‘create a dossier’ on Macanese officials. … We believe unequivocally that Jacobs initiated the investigation on his own for his own purposes.”
Last year, Sands was sanctioned by Nevada District Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez for failing to disclose the fact that it was sitting on a trove of documents in Nevada which Jacobs sought to use as evidence. The company, however, claimed that the documents could not be removed from Macau and that they are “privileged” and therefore exempt from disclosure. Gonzalez disagreed however, and ruled that Jacobs could legally use the documents as evidence.
Currently, the case has reached a standstill. Sands is now appealing three other rulings by the lower court to the Nevada Supreme Court and, most recently, it has won a postponement hearing on whether Sands China, being a Chinese company, can be tried in Nevada.
Jacobs claimed that this is nothing more than stalling the case in order to keep the incriminating documents against Sands hidden. Sands called these accusations “baseless”.
Campbell’s Soup and American Heart Association Deny Plaintiffs’ Claims in Misleading Labeling Lawsuit — Our Chicago Consumer Lawyers Pursue Consumer Fraud Claims in Chicago and Throughout the United States
Most Americans are aware that what we eat has a large impact on our health, both short term and long term. Not least among these is the fact that diet plays a major role in heart disease. In order to ensure that they are making the best possible decisions at the grocery store, many Americans rely on information from the American Heart Association (AHA) in order to provide them with the necessary guidelines. To facilitate this, the AHA marks certain processed foods with a Heart Check mark in order to notify consumers that this particular food follows the guidelines as set out by the AHA.
However, according to the allegations in a recent lawsuit against the AHA and Campbell Soup Co., the Heart Check mark can be misleading. The lawsuit alleges that the AHA collects fees from “manufacturers of unhealthy, processed foods” in return for the manufacturer being granted the right to put the Heart Check mark on their products. However, according to the lawsuit, Campbell’s “Healthy Request” soups allegedly do not meet the AHA’s “non-commercial nutritional guidelines” most notably for sodium. Instead, the lawsuit alleges, the foods bearing the Heart Check mark meet the lower standards of the federal Food and Drug Administration. This could potentially cause problems for many consumers since high sodium consumption has long been association with high blood pressure and heart disease.
The lawsuit alleges that this practice is “unfair, deceptive and misleading” because it “causes consumers to overpay for Campbell’s AHA-certified soups, but also presents substantial health risks to all consumers, including the more than five million American consumers suffering from congestive heart failure”.
According to the lawsuit, Campbell Soup gets to charge customers more for its Healthy Request Products than it does for its other products, while the AHA collects between $5,200 and $17,500 per product each year. So the arrangement is of financial benefit to both Campbell Soup and the AHA while allegedly being detrimental to both the budget and the health of consumers.
The lawsuit alleges that a single serving of Campbell’s AHA-certified soups have “nearly three times the amount of sodium permitted by the AHA’s noncommercial nutritional guidelines, while a full can contains between six and seven times that amount.” Food manufacturers often play with their serving sizes in order to make their food fit nutritional guidelines. The AHA Heart Check mark has allegedly appeared on 97 different Campbell products ranging from soups to juices, breads, and sauces.
Carla Burigatto, Campbell’s director of external communications, has released a statement saying that “Campbell has complete confidence in the accuracy of our labels and our marketing communications and that they meet regulatory and other legal requirements”.
The American Heart Association has likewise denied the allegations of the lawsuit, saying that its “food certification program regularly conducts laboratory testing to verify that products earning the Heart Check mark meet our nutritional criteria”. They are careful to point out that these criteria “are more stringent that those of the Food and Drug Administration.” The AHA also insisted that the revenue from the Heart Check fees “is only sufficient for the program’s product testing, public information and program operating expenses.”
Third Circuit Reverses Class Certification Order in Sam’s Club Extended Warranty Case and Remands for Further Fact Finding
Sam’s Club is a members-only retail warehouse that features a section for clearance items, called “as-is” items. Items may be designated “as-is” for various reasons and may be damaged or undamaged. Every as-is item is marked with an orange sticker; when a cashier scans the item, the original price appears and the cashier must perform a manual override. The software records the fact that a price override was performed, but does not include the reason. Overrides can occur for reasons other than “as-is” designation. Sam’s contracted with NEW to sell extended warranties for items sold in the store. NEW will not cover some “as is” products, including some purchased by Hayes. On each occasion, Sam’s employees offered and Hayes purchased a NEW warranty. The store provided Hayes with a manual and remote missing from a television he purchased and offered to refund the warranty price. Hayes declined. Hayes sued, on behalf of himself and all other persons who purchased a warranty for an as-is product from Clubs in New Jersey since 2004, asserting violation of the state Consumer Fraud Act, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.
The trial court certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class. The Third Circuit vacated and remanded for consideration of Rule 23’s class definition, ascertainability, and numerosity requirements in light of its recent decision of Marcus v. BMW of North America, LLC, 687 F.3d 583 (3d Cir. 2012). The Third Circuit reasoned:
Because the able trial court here did not have the benefit of Marcus’s guidance, it did not consider whether it would be administratively feasible to ascertain class members. In discussing numerosity, however, the court noted that Sam’s Club had no method for determining how many of the 3,500 price-override transactions that took place during the class period were for as-is items. The court did not see this as a barrier to class certification, reasoning that plaintiff should not be hindered from bringing a class action because defendant lacked certain records. But the nature or thoroughness of a defendant’s record keeping does not alter the plaintiff’s burden to fulfill Rule 23’s requirements. Nor has plaintiff cited any statutory or regulatory authority obligating Wal-Mart to create and maintain a particular set of records. … Given the trial court’s finding that Wal-Mart lacks records that are necessary to ascertain the class, to be successful on remand, plaintiff must offer some reliable and administratively feasible alternative that would permit the court to determine: (1) whether a Sam’s Club member purchased a Service Plan for an as-is item, (2) whether the as-is item was a “last one” item or otherwise came with a full manufacturer’s warranty, and (3) whether the member nonetheless received service on the as-is item or a refund of the cost of the Service Plan. … To summarize, plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a reliable and administratively feasible method for ascertaining the class.
You can view the full Third Circuit opinion here
.
Video: Odometer Roll-Back Fraud — Our Chicago Class Action Lawyers and Consumer Protection Attorneys Fight for Consumer Rights
Odometer rolled back on car for sale
AOL reports:
Buying a used car is already risky business, and this story of fraud in New York will have you double checking your paperwork.
Matin Jarmuz used Craigslist.com to sell his 1992 Toyota Camry. According to Jarmuz’s Craigslist post, at 21-years-old and 200,000 miles the Camry still had a smooth, quite ride. He sold the car quickly to Chris Sciolino for $900 cash. Jarmuz thought he had made a good deal, until other Craigslist users alerted him that his old Camry was up for sale again by the same man he just sold it to, only this time listed at $1,800 and with 79,000 miles.
Odometer fraud is a serious problem in the U.S. In a 2002 study the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration determined that close to half a million cars are sold each year with false odometer readings, at a cost of more than of $1 billion dollars annually. Since the study was done, the Office of Odometer Fraud Investigations has seen an escalation in cases. Fixing an odometer is a federal crime, one made much easier on newer cars where, instead of cracking open a dashboard, sellers just need to hack the onboard computer.
Our Chicago auto fraud lawyers have spoken with many consumers who have been cheated through an odometer roll-back. A car with a odometer roll-back is generally considered unmerchantable as the real mileage can not be verified.
7th Circuit Reverses Denial of Class Certification in Lockheed Martin Retirement Fund Case
Plaintiffs claim that Lockheed breached its fiduciary duty to its retirement savings plan, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(2). The Plan is a defined-contribution plan, (401(k)); employees direct part of their earnings to a tax-deferred savings account. Participants may allocate funds as they choose. Among the investment options Lockheed offered was a “stable-value fund” (SVF). SVFs typically invest in a mix of short- and intermediate-term securities, such as Treasury securities, corporate bonds, and mortgage-backed securities. Holding longer-term instruments, SVFs generally outperform money market funds. For stability, SVFs are provided through “wrap” contracts with banks or insurance companies that guarantee the fund’s principal and shield it from interest-rate volatility. Plaintiffs allege that the Lockheed SVF was heavily invested in short-term money market investments, with a low rate of return that did “not beat inflation by a sufficient margin to provide a meaningful retirement asset.”
The district court granted Lockheed summary judgment with respect to some claims. The SVF claim survived.
The district court initially certified two classes under FRCP 23(b)(1)(A). On remand, the court declined to certify further narrowed classes. The Seventh Circuit reversed, reasoning that the plaintiffs carefully limited the class to plan participants who invested in the SVF during the class period and employed reasonable means to exclude from the class persons who did not experience injury. The Court held:
To conform to Spano’s warning that the class must not be “defined so broadly that some members will actually be harmed” by the relief sought, Plaintiffs limited their definition of the SVF class to those who suffered damages as a result of Lockheed’s purportedly prudent management of the fund. … [T]his court has never held, and Spano did not
imply, that the mere possibility that a trivial level of intra-class conflict may materialize as the litigation progresses forecloses class certification entirely. … We conclude both that
Spano poses no bar to the proposed SVF class and that the district court’s reservations about the class were unfounded.
You can view the full 7th Circuit opinion here