Articles Posted in Business Disputes

Continue reading ›

Many people will try to take advantage of the sick and elderly by having them sign away their rights when they are vulnerable. However, when someone in a compromised position signs a legal document, a court of law may choose not to find that document to be binding.

Such is allegedly the case with Harper Lee, the author of “To Kill a Mockingbird”, in signing her copyright over to her agent. Eugene Winick represented Lee for more than 40 years. When Winick fell ill in 2002, his son-in-law, Samuel Pinkus, took over many of Winick’s clients. Lee has recently filed a lawsuit in Manhattan to regain control of her copyright.

According to the lawsuit, in 2007, Pinkus “engaged in a scheme to dupe” the then 80-year-old Lee into signing over her copyright for “To Kill a Mockingbird” without payment. At the time, Lee was recovering from a stroke in an assisted-living facility. The complaint alleges that, “Pinkus knew that Harper Lee was an elderly woman with physical infirmities that made it difficult for her to read and see”. Lee says she has no memory of agreeing to sign over her copyright.

The transfer allegedly secured for Pinkus “irrevocable” interest in the income derived from her book. It also helped him to avoid paying legal obligations to his father-in-law’s company for royalties that Pinkus misappropriated.

Although the copyright was reassigned to Lee last year as a result of a separate legal action, Pinkus was allegedly still receiving royalties from the novel as of this year, the complaint alleges. The current lawsuit is asking that any commissions Pinkus has received since 2007 be returned to Lee.

The lawsuit also claims that Pinkus has failed to provide royalty statements in recent years to explain money earned by the book. Additionally, Pinkus allegedly failed to respond to offers by HarperCollins to discuss licensing e-book rights and did not respond to the publisher’s request for assistance related to the book’s 50th anniversary.

“To Kill a Mockingbird” was published in 1960 and is Lee’s only published book. It is considered a classic and has sold more than 30 million copies.

Continue reading ›

While copyright attorneys are very useful in protecting the rights of citizens, there are those who allegedly use illegal means to take advantage of copyright laws, as well as the high cost of litigation.

Three attorneys, Paul Hansmeier, John Steele, and Paul Duffy allegedly set up a copyright-trolling operation which came to be known as Prenda Law. The attorneys at Prenda Law allegedly forged copyright documents to give themselves the right to sue those who illegally downloaded pornography. They would then search the IP address of those who illegally downloaded the porn and sue. Before going to trail however, Prenda Law would offer the defendant a settlement of about $4,000, just below what a bare-bones defense in court would cost. To avoid the expense of litigation, and the embarrassment of having their names associated with a public trial involving pornography, the defendants allegedly were, more often than not, willing to pay the settlement.

In order to pull off this alleged scheme, the attorneys would file early-discovery requests with the courts so they could settle. Once they came upon a determined defendant though, Prenda allegedly quickly backed off. U.S. District Judge Otis Wright notes that, “Without better technology, prosecuting illegal BitTorrent activity requires substantial effort in order to make a case. … It is simply not economical viable to properly prosecute the illegal download of a single copyrighted video.”

Instead of admitting to the existence of other possibilities (for example, an outsider using a home WiFi signal), Wright says that Brett Gibbs, an attorney who worked for Prenda Law who is now testifying against Prenda, deliberately downplayed them. In one case, Gibbs described the defendant’s property as “a very large estate consisting of a gate for entry and multiple separate houses/structures on the property.” A quick search using Google Street View though, showed a very different picture: a modest home in West Covina, a Los Angeles suburb. Wright says, “It is a small house in a closely packed residential neighborhood, … There are also no gates visible. Gibbs’s statement is a blatant lie.”

At the hearing, the attorneys behind Prenda took the Fifth Amendment. They refused to answer such simple questions as who owned their shell companies and where the settlement money (rumored to be in the millions) was going.

The judge ordered the three Prenda attorneys to pay sanctions to defense attorneys of $36,150 to Morgan Pietz and $1,950 to Nicholas Ranallo. Wright then doubled that amount “as a punitive measure” for a total of $81,319.72. The judge says in a footnote that the total “is calculated to be just below the cost of an effective appeal”. The Prenda attorneys have 14 days to pay the sanctions.

Wright is also suggesting that the attorneys be disbarred. He states that, “there is little doubt that Steele, Hansmeier, Duffy [and] Gibbs suffer from a form of moral turpitude unbecoming an officer of the court.” In many states, California included, crimes reaching the level of “moral turpitude” lead to automatic disbarment. Wright says that he will be referring the four lawyers to every state bar in which they are currently admitted to practice.

Additionally, the judge has suggested that the alleged Prenda scheme warrants criminal investigation. In his conclusion, Wright says, “The Court will refer this matter to the United States Attorney for the Central District of California. The [court] will also refer this matter to the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service and will notify all judges before whom these attorneys have pending cases.”

Continue reading ›

Super 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 thirty years experience in litigating complex class action, consumer rights and business and commercial litigation disputes. We handle libel and defamation cases, First Amendment issues and 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.

DiTommaso Lubin’s Wheaton, Naperville, and Aurora litigation attorneys have more than two and half decades of experience helping business clients unravel the complexities of Illinois and out-of-state business laws. Our Chicago business, commercial, class-action, and consumer litigation lawyers represent individuals, family businesses and enterprises of all sizes in a variety of legal disputes, including disputes among partners and shareholders as well as lawsuits between businesses and consumer rights, auto fraud, and wage claim individual and class action cases. In every case, our goal is to resolve disputes as quickly and successfully as possible, helping business clients protect their investments and get back to business as usual. From offices in Oak Brook, near Naperville and Glen Ellyn, we serve clients throughout Illinois and the Midwest.

If you’re facing a business or class-action lawsuit, or the possibility of one, and you’d like to discuss how the experienced Illinois business dispute attorneys at DiTommaso Lubin can help, we would like to hear from you. To set up a consultation with one of our Chicago class action attorneys and Chicago business trial lawyers, please call us toll-free at 630-333-0333 or contact us through the Internet.

Chicago has long been known for its corrupt politicians. A former executive of the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority (ISFA) claims that the IFSA is no exception in a recent lawsuit. The Authority denies those allegations.

Perri Imer, the former executive director of the ISFA, has filed a lawsuit against former Illinois governor Jim Thompson and the White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf. The lawsuit alleges that the two conspired to have Imer fired two years ago to stop her reforms at the public agency from going through. The complaint alleges that Reinsdorf and Thompson, who was chairman of the ISFA at the time, “sought to silence Perri Imer and to stifle her efforts to protect Illinois taxpayers from Reinsdorf’s greed.”

According to the lawsuit, Reinsdorf allegedly pressured Thompson to remove Imer because of her success in getting the White Sox to pay $1.2 million in yearly rent to the agency for the use of U.S. Cellular Field. According to the lawsuit, Reinsdorf allegedly had “undue influence” over former Governor Thompson and apparently over all the members of the ISFA Board of Directors who became complicit in allowing Reinsdorf to treat Cellular Field and the surrounding publicly owned lands as his personal fiefdom.”

According to the complaint, the public agency used taxpayer money to build and renovate U.S. Cellular Field as well as to build the restaurant next door, Bacardi at the Park. However, most of the revenue from those two facilities has allegedly gone to the White Sox.

The lawsuit alleges that the “highly favorable terms granted to the White Sox in 1998 and intended to last until at least 2029 served to create a sense of entitlement on the part of White Sox Chairman Reinsdorf, who has repeatedly acted as though U.S. Cellular Field was a gift by the Illinois taxpayers to Reinsdorf and his team”.

Thompson dismissed the lawsuit as a “self-serving tirade” and both he and a Reinsdorf spokesman denied the allegations.

Continue reading ›

While many consider an oral agreement to be as binding as a legal contract, not everyone chooses to see it that way. Bruton Smith, owner of Speedway Motors Inc. (SMI) and Charlotte Motor Speedway, discovered this for himself regarding an agreement he made with Cabarrus County in North Carolina.

According to the lawsuit, Smith agreed to build a drag strip and make more than $200 million in upgrades to the Charlotte Motor Speedway. In return, Concord and Cabarrus county officials offered $80 million in tax breaks. The deal was announced in November 2007 but was never put into writing until the day after the zMax Dragway officially opened in August 2008, three weeks before its first scheduled race.

The contract stipulated that SMI was to spend its millions in infrastructure improvements within three years, but would be reimbursed through property tax breaks as improvements increased the value of the drag strip. Smith rejected the contract and SMI and Charlotte Motor Speedway sued the city in September 2009. Concord was dropped from the case after agreeing to pay $2.8 million and getting land easements. It is a common method used by North Carolina governments to encourage company investment.

SMI’s lawyers allege that local officials made a verbal promise in 2007 to provide $80 million in no more than six years. They also allege that the county had a financial motive and therefore cannot defend itself with a local law which protects municipalities from lawsuits.
Lawyers for Cabarrus County on the other hand, claim that the 2007 agreement was “an agreement to agree, which is not an agreement at all”. They also said that the fact that SMI built the drag strip and made other improvements before the deal was finalized is not the fault of the county.

The county’s lawyers further declare that it would be difficult for the county to come up with $80 million quickly because it is permitted to collect no more than $104 million in property taxes each year. According to the lawyers, that information is public knowledge and so SMI cannot claim that it was blindsided.

The dispute began when Smith gave the orders for workers to start grazing land on speedway property for the $60 million drag strip 20 miles north of Charlotte before obtaining the requisite permits to do so. When the area residents complained about the potential for increased noise, Smith dismissed the complaints. In a 2008 interview, he asked, “Do you have any friends that built a house close to a speedway that didn’t know there was a speedway here? Can you imagine? All of you knew there was a speedway here, right?”
When local officials delayed in granting the permits, Smith threatened to build the drag strip elsewhere and move the speedway, which helps to foster a motorsports industry with an estimated worth of $6 billion a year in North Carolina.

It is not clear whether SMI – which owns the track and seven others in Georgia, Tennessee, California, Kentucky, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas – has yet received any of the $80 million it was allegedly promised.

A judge dismissed the lawsuit last year but Smith is now trying to resurrect it. A three-judge state Court of Appeals panel will hold a closed-door discussion to determine whether the lawsuit will be heard by a jury. They are expected to reach a decision within the next three months and, if they decide to allow the case to move forward, it could be appealed to the Supreme Court. If the lawsuit does not move forward, SMI may have to wait as long as 40 years to be reimbursed.

Continue reading ›

The Federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) makes it illegal to send unsolicited advertisements to fax machines. The Act provides that damages in these cases will be equal to the actual monetary loss suffered by the plaintiff or $500 per fax, whichever is greater. In the event that violation of the Act is found to be knowing and willful, the penalty is tripled.
In Standard Mutual Insurance Co. v. Lay, the defendant, a real estate agency, had hired a “fax broadcaster” which allegedly assured that only people who had agreed to receive advertisements would get its blast fax. This turned out not to be the case though, and the subsequent class-action litigation sought the triple penalty of $1,500 for each of the 3,478 faxes, which had reportedly been sent. The case settled for more than $1.7 million.

Meanwhile, the insurer filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration of no coverage. After the underlying action settled, the class representative became involved with the declaratory judgment action. The Circuit Court ruled in favor of the insurer and the Appellate Court upheld that ruling, stating that the TCPA penalties could not be insured as a matter of public policy, since they were punitive damages.

The attorney for Lay argued that it was the nature of the conduct, rather than the nature of the penalty, which should determine insurability. He explained that the insured’s conduct was not willful or wanton and did not involve the type of intentional wrongdoing which public policy does not allow to be insured as it would encourage such conduct. The attorney argued that a point by point or “conduct by conduct” analysis is necessary when determining whether conduct is uninsurable as a matter of public policy because it involves willful and wanton misbehavior. The attorney argued that Valley Forge Insurance Co. v. Swiderski Electronics ruled that TCPA damages have the potential to be covered under an advertising injury policy, much like the one involved in the case currently before the Court and that no intentional wrongdoing was involved.

The attorney for the insurer argued that there was an issue of possible breaches by the insured of the policy. The insurer defended under a reservation of rights letter. About four months after the case was filed, the attorney that had been hired by the insurer was fired by the insured. A month or two later, the insured agreed to the $1.79 million settlement with a covenant not to execute against any of the insured’s assets. The insurer’s attorney thereby suggested that there were questions of a breach of the cooperation clause and a voluntary payment had been undertaken. Chief Justice Kilbride asked the attorney if the insurer knew about and objected to the insured’s settlement. The attorney responded that the insurer had not been aware of the settlement.

The attorney for the class representative counter-argued that the insured had the right to settle under the circumstances and that the insurer had certainly known about the settlement.
The Illinois Supreme Court heard these arguments on the final day of the March term and is expected to make a decision in the fall. You can watch the oral argument before the Supreme Court by clicking here.

Continue reading ›