Articles Posted in Business Disputes

|

Under Illinois law, defenses for a partner accused of breaching fiduciary duties to the partnership and his other partners can be varied and nuanced (LID Associates v. Dolan, 324 Ill.App.3d 1047 (2001)), (Pielet v. Hiffman, 407 Ill.App.3d 788 (2011)). Here are some potential defenses:

1. Compliance with Partnership Agreement: A partner who has acted in accordance with an express authorization in the partnership agreement may not be deemed in breach of fiduciary duties (1515 North Wells, L.P. v. 1513 North Wells, L.L.C., 392 Ill.App.3d 863 (2009). However, no language in a partnership agreement, however clear and explicit, can reduce a partner’s fiduciary duty toward other partners (Pielet v. Hiffman, 407 Ill.App.3d 788 (2011)).

2. Good Faith and Fairness: A partner can defend on the grounds that he has acted in good faith and fairness in his dealings with other partners (Winston & Strawn v. Nosal, 279 Ill.App.3d 231 (1996)). Under Illinois law, a fiduciary relationship exists between partners and each is bound to exercise the utmost good faith in all dealings and transactions related to the partnership business (Pielet v. Hiffman, 407 Ill.App.3d 788 (2011)), 1515 North Wells, L.P. v. 1513 North Wells, L.L.C., 392 Ill.App.3d 863 (2009)).

3. Lack of Personal Advantage: If a partner can show that he has not advantaged himself at the expense of the firm, this could be a defense against an accusation of fiduciary duty breach.

4. Right to Manage Partnership Affairs: If a partner was managing the affairs of the partnership and did not conceal, misrepresent or seek to take advantage of his partner, he might be able to argue that he was not in breach of fiduciary duties (Mermelstein v. Menora, 372 Ill.App.3d 407 (2007)).

5. Discrepancies in Accounting or Interpretation of Rights and Duties: Discrepancies or errors in accounting, or misinterpretations of rights and duties under partnership agreements, can be invoked as a defense, especially if the partner did not seek personal advantage.

6. Duty of Good Faith: If it can be shown that the partner always exercised good faith in his dealings with other partners, he can defend against the accusations (Pielet v. Hiffman, 407 Ill.App.3d 788 (2011)), (Winston & Strawn v. Nosal, 279 Ill.App.3d 231 (1996)).

Remember that each case is unique and the success of these defenses can depend on the specifics of the partnership agreement and the facts of the case. These defenses are not exhaustive and other defenses may be available depending on the specifics of a case. Continue reading ›

|

In Illinois, there are several circumstances under which a partner can sue another partner (Battles v. LaSalle Nat. Bank, 240 Ill.App.3d 550 (1992)), (In re Ascher, 141 B.R. 652 (1992), (Hux v. Woodcock, 130 Ill.App.3d 721 (1985)):

1. A partner can sue another for a breach of fiduciary duty, such as if a partner sells partnership property to a third party without approval from all partners (Battles v. LaSalle Nat. Bank, 240 Ill.App.3d 550 (1992)), (Nussbaum v. Kennedy, 267 Ill.App.3d 325 (1994).

2. A partner or partnership can bring an action against a co-partner if the plaintiff’s claim can be decided without a full review of the partnership accounts. This means that if the issue between partners can be resolved without an accounting, one partner can sue the other. However, if such an issue requires an accounting, that is the proper remedy to seek under the Illinois Partnership Act (In re Ascher, 141 B.R. 652 (1992)).

3. The capacity to sue is determined under Illinois law, and a partnership must sue in the name of all its partners (Stotler and Co. v. Reisinger, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1987). In other words, to sue a partnership, it is necessary to sue and serve all of the partners (Gerut v. Poe, 11 F.R.D. 281 (1951)).

4. A partner may not sue individually to recover damages for injury to the partnership (Hux v. Woodcock, 130 Ill.App.3d 721 (1985)), (Creek v. Village of Westhaven, 80 F.3d 186 (1996)). The lawsuit must be filed on behalf of the partnership and not the individual partner.

5. In cases involving a limited partnership, a limited partner can sue the general partners for alleged breaches of fiduciary and contractual duties arising under a written limited partnership agreement (Illinois Rockford Corp. v. Dickman, 167 Ill.App.3d 113 (1988)). However, limited partners do not have a cause of action for damages to their interest in a limited partnership as long as the partnership exists and has not been dissolved or liquidated (766347 Ontario Ltd. v. Zurich Capital Markets, Inc., 249 F.Supp.2d 974 (2003)).

6. A partner may maintain an action against a co-partner absent an accounting in certain situations, including upon claims involving express personal contracts between the partners, and also upon claims involving the failure to comply with an agreement constituting a condition precedent to the formation of a partnership (Hux v. Woodcock, 130 Ill.App.3d 721 (1985)).

7. Illinois courts may imply rights of action from Illinois statutes under certain circumstances. These include instances where the plaintiff is a member of the class for whose benefit the Illinois legislature enacted the statute; implication of the right is consistent with the underlying purpose of the statute; the plaintiff’s claimed injury is one which the Illinois legislature designed the statute to prevent; and a private right of action is necessary to effectuate the purposes of the statute (Bane v. Ferguson, 707 F.Supp. 988 (1989)). Continue reading ›

|
Choosing DiTommaso Lubin for business litigation comes with several advantages, particularly due to their experience and client-focused approach. Here are some key reasons why they are a compelling choice:
  1. Experience Across Business Litigation Domains: DiTommaso Lubin handles a wide range of business litigation matters, including disputes related to shareholders, LLC members, and partnerships, as well as issues involving trade secret theft, copyright and trademark infringement, and non-compete agreements. They are also experienced in emergency injunctive relief and a variety of other complex litigation areas such as consumer fraud and employment disputes​ (Chicago Business Litigation Lawyer Blog)​.
  2. Dedicated Legal Team: The firm’s attorneys, including noted lawyers like Peter Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle, are recognized for their legal acumen. Both have received accolades such as “Super Lawyer” and “Rising Star,” underscoring their professional excellence​ (Chicago Business Litigation Lawyer Blog)​​ (Chicago Business Litigation Lawyer Blog)​.
Continue reading ›

|

In the business world of closely held companies in Illinois, minority shareholders often find themselves vulnerable to what is known as a “freeze out” or “squeeze out.” This blog post delves into this phenomenon, exploring what it means, how it happens, and the legal backdrop in Illinois that governs such situations.

What is a Freeze Out/Squeeze Out?

A freeze out or squeeze out occurs when majority shareholders in a closely held company engage in practices aimed at marginalizing, reducing, or eliminating the minority shareholders’ stake in the company. This can be done in various ways, such as refusing to declare dividends, terminating employment, or other tactics that essentially force minority shareholders to sell their shares at a reduced value.

Common Tactics Used

  1. Withholding Dividends: Majority shareholders may decide not to declare dividends, thereby cutting off a key financial benefit of holding shares.
  2. Employment Termination: Minority shareholders who are employed by the company might be terminated or demoted.
  3. Denying Access to Information: Minority shareholders might be denied access to important company information, impacting their ability to make informed decisions.
  4. Dilution of Shares: The company might issue more shares, diluting the minority’s ownership percentage.

Legal Framework in Illinois

In Illinois, the rights of minority shareholders in closely held corporations are protected under various statutes and case law. The Illinois Business Corporation Act provides certain protections and remedies for minority shareholders, including the right to a fair valuation of their shares.

  1. Fiduciary Duties: Majority shareholders have fiduciary duties to the minority. Breach of these duties can form the basis for legal action.
  2. Oppression Remedies: The law provides remedies for “oppressive” actions by majority shareholders. This can include actions that are burdensome, harsh, or wrongful.

In Illinois, there are several significant cases that provide guidance on the treatment of minority shareholder or LLC member freeze-outs or squeeze-outs.

In “Vanco v. Mancini”, the court acknowledged the vulnerability of minority shareholders to freeze-outs or squeeze-outs where the majority, for personal rather than legitimate business reasons, deprives the minority shareholder of their office, employment, and salary. The court highlighted the availability of judicial remedies, including the dissolution of the corporation, in such instances.

The case of “Rexford Rand Corp. v. Ancel” further expanded on this issue. The court suggested the necessity of a fiduciary duty on shareholders in a close corporation as a protective measure against oppressive conduct by the majority. It also indicated that a minority shareholder who has been frozen out should rely on an oppressed shareholder lawsuit against the corporation seeking damages or dissolution. Interestingly, the court discussed whether a freeze-out terminates a shareholder’s fiduciary duty to a close corporation and concluded that a minority shareholder who has been frozen out no longer exercises influence over corporate affairs that gives rise to a fiduciary duty.

“Small v. Sussman” held that the injuries alleged by a minority shareholder were injuries to the corporation, thus only a shareholder derivative action was available. It also found that a freeze-out merger that, through a reverse stock split, eliminated a minority shareholder’s fractional share, did not support a constructive fraud claim. The court ruled that a minority shareholder cannot recover on a conversion claim against the majority shareholder and corporation in connection with a freeze-out merger that eliminated his fractional share.

Further to this, “Jaffe Commercial Finance Co. v. Harris” held that a majority, by merely voting its strength to effectively oust minority from participation in the business of a corporation, did not act oppressively within the meaning of the statute authorizing liquidation. Similarly, in “Jahn v. Kinderman”, it was held that frozen-out minority shareholders in closely held corporations may seek dissolution of the entity, and majority shareholders may avoid this result via a buyout of the minority at a “fair value” to be determined by the circuit court if the parties are unable to reach an agreement.

Lastly, “Bone v. Coyle Mechanical Supply, Inc.” found that majority shareholders’ conduct in failing to hold annual meetings, failing to observe corporate formalities in increasing bonuses and compensation, and effectively “freezing-out” minority shareholders could be considered as outrageous, due to evil motive or reckless indifference to the rights of others.

Please note that these cases provide a general outline of the law in Illinois on minority shareholder or LLC member freeze-outs or squeeze-outs, and the specific holdings may vary depending on the facts of each case.

Continue reading ›

|

Extensive Experience in Partnership, LLC Member, and Shareholder Disputes

At DiTommaso Lubin, we understand the complexities of business disputes in closely held companies. Whether you are facing a partnership disagreement, LLC member conflict, or shareholder dispute, our experienced attorneys are here to provide you with the guidance and representation you need to protect your interests.

Personalized Attention for Closely Held Companies

Continue reading ›

|

In closely held companies, particularly LLCs and corporations with a limited number of shareholders, the issue of compensation for owners and shareholders can be a legal minefield. A significant concern arises when majority owners, often also serving as executives, award themselves excessively high salaries or compensation. This practice, while appearing to be a clever business strategy, can veer into illegality, particularly if it’s done with the intent to minimize or avoid distributions to minority owners.

Understanding the Legal Framework

The legal principles governing such practices are rooted in the fiduciary duties that majority shareholders or LLC owners owe to minority stakeholders. These duties include the duty of loyalty, which mandates that decisions must be made in the best interests of the company and all shareholders, not just a select few.

When majority owners inflate their compensation unjustly, they may be breaching this duty. This is especially true if the inflated salaries negatively impact the company’s profitability or the ability to pay dividends or distributions to other shareholders.

Case Law and Legal Precedents

Various legal precedents highlight this issue. Courts have often scrutinized such practices under the lens of fairness and the fiduciary duties owed. For instance, in cases where the majority shareholders’ salaries are disproportionately high compared to the company’s overall financial health or industry standards, courts have found this to be a breach of fiduciary duty.

In cases such as Fleming v. Louvers International, Inc., courts have found that depriving a minority shareholder of his rightful pro rata distributions through excessive compensation can constitute a breach of fiduciary duty. Another case, Kovac v. Barron, identified a shareholder who committed constructive fraud by causing the corporation to pay him and his wife millions in excessive compensation, which was then concealed as “contract labor” on tax returns.

Certain regulations also provide guidance on this matter. For instance, compensation exceeding the costs that are deductible as compensation under the Internal Revenue Code are deemed unallowable for owners of closely held companies. The Small Business Administration (SBA) views the payment of excessive officers’ salaries as a type of withdrawal from a company, implying that the SBA may see such actions as an attempt to avoid excessive withdrawal limitations. Continue reading ›

|

In Illinois, the elements of tortious interference with prospective business relationships are as follows:

1) A reasonable expectation of the plaintiff entering into a valid business relationship.
2) The defendant’s knowledge of this expectancy.
3) The defendant’s intentional and unjustifiable interference, causing a breach or termination of the expectancy.
4) The plaintiff suffering damage as a result of the defendant’s interference.

Several notable cases have detailed and applied these principles. In Titan Intern., Inc. v. Becker, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendants interfered with their prospective business relations with various entities, causing economic harm. In Force Partners, LLC v. KSA Lighting & Controls, Inc., it was highlighted that commercial competitors can interfere with each other’s prospective business relationships as long as the intent is not solely motivated by malice or ill will. Doctor’s Data, Inc. v. Barrett clarified that a reasonable expectancy requires more than the mere hope of a business relationship – a plaintiff must identify a reasonable business expectancy with a specific third party. In Labor Ready, Inc. v. Williams Staffing, LLC, it was established that a company can state a claim against a competitor for tortious interference by alleging that the competitor purposely interfered with prospective business relations through various means, causing the company to lose future business. Lastly, in Giant Screen Sports LLC v. Sky High Entertainment, it was emphasized that a plaintiff must allege that the defendant’s interference prevented the expectancy from being fulfilled.

Additional case law includes Buckley v. Peak6 Investments, LP, which explained that even when an employer’s statement is deemed privileged from a tortious interference claim, the plaintiff can still prevail by showing that the defendant acted with malice. This can be achieved by showing that the defendant made unjustified statements, excessively published statements, or made statements in conflict with the interest which gave rise to the privilege. Furthermore, the terms “tortious interference with prospective economic advantage”, “business expectancy”, and “business relations” are used interchangeably under Illinois law, as noted in Allstate Insurance Company v. Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. Finally, Butler v. Holstein Association, USA, Inc. clarified that a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant purposefully interfered, preventing the plaintiff’s legitimate expectancy from ripening into a valid business relationship. These cases collectively provide a comprehensive view of tortious interference with prospective business relations under Illinois law.

Continue reading ›

|

Illinois has two rules that can be used to dismiss cases which allows for more flexibility in defending some actions then in federal court where there is only one means to seek dismissal of an action.

A Section 2-615 motion to dismiss and a Section 2-619 motion to dismiss under Illinois law are two distinct legal tools, each serving specific purposes.

A Section 2-615 motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint by challenging whether the complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted. This motion is concerned with defects appearing on the face of the complaint and does not rely on matters outside the complaint. It admits all well-pleaded facts and attacks the legal sufficiency of the complaint [5], [7], [12]. The court, in ruling on a 2-615 motion, considers only the allegations in the pleadings.

On the other hand, a Section 2-619 motion to dismiss acknowledges the legal sufficiency of the complaint but asserts that there are certain external defects or defenses that defeat the claims. It admits the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff’s claim but asserts ‘affirmative matter’ outside of the pleading that defeats the claim. This motion is sometimes referred to as a ‘Yes, but’ motion because it essentially says, ‘Yes, the complaint was legally sufficient, but an affirmative matter exists that defeats the claim’.

The two types of motions can be combined under Section 2-619.1, but it is important to maintain procedural distinctions between them. Each part of a combined motion should be limited to and specify that it is made under one of Sections 2-615, 2-619, or 2-1005, and should clearly show the points or grounds relied upon under the Section upon which it is based.

In dealing with these motions, the court interprets all pleadings and supporting documents in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Furthermore, dismissals pursuant to sections 2-615, 2-619, and 2-619.1 are reviewed de novo. Continue reading ›

|

Choosing DiTommaso Lubin for business litigation offers several compelling advantages. Firstly, the firm is known for its commitment to achieving significant victories and effecting change for clients and the community. This dedication is reflected in the firm’s ability to deliver high-quality services with a level of personal attention that is sometimes lacking in larger law practices​​.

DiTommaso Lubin’s team is adept at handling a wide range of business litigation matters. This includes shareholder, owner, LLC member, and partnership disputes, trade secret theft, copyright and trademark infringement, business fraud, non-compete agreements, and restrictive covenants​​​​. Their experience also extends to dealing with emergency (preliminary) injunctive relief in business disputes, class actions, consumer fraud, employment litigation, and real estate litigation​​.

The firm’s reputation for integrity and success is well-recognized in the Chicagoland area and among peers. Notably, Peter Lubin has been distinguished as a “Super Lawyer,” and Patrick Austermuehle has been named a “rising star” by a prestigious rating service. These accolades reflect their commitment to legal excellence and professionalism​​.

Continue reading ›

|

In Illinois, tortious interference with contract and tortious interference with prospective business relations are two distinct torts with different pleading requirements.

To establish a case for tortious interference with contract, the plaintiff must show the following [7]:
1) Existence of a valid and enforceable contract between the plaintiff and another party
2) The defendant’s awareness of this contractual relationship
3) The defendant intentionally and unjustifiably induced a breach of the contract, which results in a subsequent breach by the other contracting party
4) The plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the breach. 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