Business Disputes

Former McDonald’s CEO Charged with Lying to Investors

January 14, 2023 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

When Stephen Easterbrook was first fired from his position as CEO of McDonald’s, the firing was listed as “without cause,” which allowed Easterbrook to keep his severance pay, including shares in the company. But that was before McDonald’s found out about the extent of Easterbrook’s alleged misconduct.

At the time he was fired, Easterbrook allegedly denied having any inappropriate relationships with any of his employees, except for one relationship, which he claimed had not been physical. Afterwards, an internal investigation found emails that allegedly revealed Easterbrook’s sexual relationships with multiple McDonald’s employees during his time as CEO. Once these emails were uncovered, the company sued Easterbrook in 2020.

The lawsuit resulted in Easterbrook returning his shares in the company, as well as cash, the combined value of which was about $105 million at the time he returned it. Continue reading ›

Spotting the Red Flags of Trusts and Estates Fraud

December 15, 2022 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Executors and trustees have a large amount of responsibility with respect to the assets they manage and to the beneficiaries for whose benefit they manage such assets. However, with a high degree of responsibility comes a high degree of accountability. That accountability comes in the form of the fiduciary duties that trustees and executors owe to the beneficiaries of an estate or trust. Chief among those fiduciary duties are the duties of loyalty, care, impartiality, and disclosure.

One way that executors and trustees can breach their fiduciary duties is by engaging in fraud. Executor or trustee fraud occurs when the executor or trustee uses deceit to misappropriate estate or trust assets for themselves or someone else not entitled to receive them. Claims of executor or trustee fraud can have serious consequences, including holding the executor or trustee personally liable for the losses suffered by the beneficiaries.

Examples of ways that an executor or trustee can commit fraud against the beneficiaries include:

Misappropriating assets of the estate or trust
Withholding distributions from beneficiaries
Distributing less than what a beneficiary is entitled
Hiding or omitting estate or trust assets
Failing to notify beneficiaries
Falsifying liabilities
Charging inflated fees
Selling assets for below market value to someone connected to the trustee or executor such as a friend or family member.

Court Rules that Client Can Sue Lawyers over Punitive Damages Award

November 20, 2022 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

In a recent decision, the Illinois Supreme Court held that clients ordered to pay punitive damages can sue their attorneys to recover the money. In doing so the Court considered and rejected arguments that state law and public policy protect lawyers from being subject to punitive damages awards.

Midwest Sanitary Service Inc. retained St. Louis law firm Sandberg, Phoenix & Von Gontard to represent it in a whistleblower retaliation case filed against it by a former employee. Midwest lost the trial which resulted in a jury award of $160,000 in compensatory damages and, important to the case before the Court, $625,000 in punitive damages against the company. Following the verdict, Midwest sued its lawyers for malpractice alleging that the attorneys had committed various mistakes in the case including failing to designate defense witnesses in time and eliciting harmful testimony from a state official during cross-examination.

For their part, the attorneys sought dismissal of the legal malpractice suit arguing that Section 2-1115 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure prohibition against awarding punitive damages in medical or legal malpractice cases precluded Midwest from recovery of the punitive damages award. It also argued that allowing recovery in a legal malpractice suit of punitive damages awarded in an underlying suit would violate the public policy of Illinois. The trial court rejected the law firm’s arguments that it could not be held responsible for the punitive damages award. The Fifth District appellate court sided with the trial court. The Illinois Supreme Court granted the law firm’s petition for leave to appeal.

Initially, the Court noted that the malpractice case was still ongoing and that the appeal had not come from a final and appealable judgment but was an interlocutory appeal brought pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 308. As such, the Court’s task was to answer the question of whether, in a legal malpractice action, punitive damages incurred in an underlying action, which were proximately caused by the alleged negligence of the attorneys in the underlying action, can be recovered as compensatory damages from the allegedly negligent attorneys in a legal malpractice action. Continue reading ›

DiTommaso Lubin Partner Authors Amicus Brief in Fee Petition Case Successfully Resulting in Reversal of Trial Court

October 2, 2022 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

In a case that has potentially far-reaching implications for fee petitions, the Illinois Third District appellate court formally adopted a framework for considering such petitions laid out by the Supreme Court nearly four decades ago. Perhaps just as important, the Third District rebuffed the trial court’s reduction of attorney fees awarded to a successful plaintiff without explaining the reasoning for the reduction. The Court ultimately reversed the trial court’s award and remanded the case for further consideration of the plaintiff’s fee petition.

The plaintiff in the case, Austin Casey III, bought a used vehicle from the defendant, Rides Unlimited Chicago, Inc. The vehicle broke down two hours into Casey’s return trip to his home in Michigan. Casey had the vehicle towed back to Rides Unlimited the same day and requested a refund of the purchase price. Rides Unlimited refused. Casey then sued Rides Unlimited alleging violations of the various statutes including the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Consumer Fraud Act). After discovery, Casey filed a motion for summary judgment on his claim that Rides Unlimited violated Section 2L of the Consumer Fraud Act.

Section 2L prohibits a vehicle dealership from “exclud[ing], modify[ing], or disclaim[ing] the implied warranty of merchantability . . . before midnight of the 15th calendar day after delivery of a used motor vehicle or until a used motor vehicle is driven 500 miles after delivery, whichever is earlier.” It further provides that any “attempt to exclude, modify, or disclaim the implied warranty of merchantability or to limit the remedies for a breach of the warranty in violation of this Section renders a purchase agreement voidable at the option of the purchaser.”

The trial court granted Casey’s motion for summary judgment, awarded Casey the purchase price, and dismissed Casey’s other claims. Casey then filed a petition for attorney fees under Section 10a(c) of the Consumer Fraud Act, which provides that a court “may award, in addition to the relief provided in this Section, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party.” Casey sought $10,640 in attorney fees and $454.52 in costs, for a total of $11,094.52. The trial court held a hearing on the fee petition and ultimately granted the petition but reduced the fee award to only $2,500. Casey appealed the trial court’s reduced fee award.

The Third District court of appeals granted leave to the National Association of Consumer Advocates and the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association to file an amicus curiae brief in support of Casey’s position that the trial court erred in reducing the attorney fee award. Our own Patrick Austermuehle authored the amicus brief that ultimately resulted in the Third District’s reversal and remand of the case back to the trial court to reconsider Casey’s petition for attorney fees. Continue reading ›

Delaware Judge Finds for Elon Musk on Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims

June 12, 2022 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

A Delaware Chancery Court judge recently rendered a post-trial verdict in the In re Tesla Motors Stockholder Litigation in which he found in favor of co-founder and CEO of Tesla Motors, Elon Musk, on claims that Musk breached his fiduciary duties, was unjustly enriched, and created corporate waste in connection with Tesla’s 2016 acquisition of the SolarCity Corporation.

This high-profile, high-stakes lawsuit stemmed from alleged conflicts of interest created by Musk’s leadership and ownership of both companies during the 2016 acquisition. At the time of the merger, Musk was SolarCity’s largest stockholder and chaired its board of directors. At the same time, he owned 22% of Tesla stock and served as CEO and a director of Tesla. When the potential acquisition of SolarCity came up, Tesla’s board elected not to form a special committee of independent directors to negotiate the transaction. It did, however, condition approval of the acquisition on the “affirmative vote of a majority of the minority of Tesla’s disinterested stockholders” and recused Musk from certain Board discussions regarding the acquisition.

Despite these protections, the plaintiff shareholders alleged that Musk, as Tesla’s controlling shareholder, exerted his influence over Tesla’s board to approve the acquisition at an unfair price, following a highly flawed process, in order to bail out his (and other family members’) foundering investment in SolarCity. Plaintiffs named both Musk and members of Tesla’s board as defendants and sought damages as well as equitable remedies. Before trial, all defendants except Musk settled with plaintiffs, leaving only the claims against Musk proceeding to an 11-day trial over July and August 2021. Continue reading ›

California Court Rules that Jury Must Decide Issue of Willfulness in Fair Credit Reporting Act Class Action

May 24, 2022 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

A California state appellate court recently issued an opinion reviving a class-action lawsuit concerning alleged violations of requirements employers must follow when performing employment-related background checks. In its opinion, the Court reversed summary judgment entered in favor of book retailer Barnes & Noble in a class-action lawsuit accusing the retailer of failing to strictly comply with the requirements for obtaining authorization for background checks found in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The Court’s decision breathes new life into the putative class action which was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

The FCRA is a federal statute that is meant to protect consumer privacy and promote fair and accurate credit reporting. Part of the law contains a number of requirements that employers must follow when performing employment-related background checks. Two of these requirements are found in 15 U.S.C. 1681b and require an “employer who obtains a consumer report about a job applicant first to provide the applicant with a standalone, clear and conspicuous disclosure of its intention to do so, and to obtain the applicant’s consent.” The FCRA further requires that the disclosure be contained in a document that consists solely of the disclosure.

In 2018, the plaintiff applied to work for Barnes & Noble. During the application process, Barnes & Noble’s consumer reporting agency, First Advantage, emailed the plaintiff a link to a website containing the retailer’s consumer report disclosure and asked her to authorize Barnes & Noble to perform a background check. The plaintiff alleges that she clicked the link, viewed the disclosure, and authorized Barnes & Noble to perform the background check.

First Advantage had prepared the consumer report disclosure statement that appeared on Barnes & Noble’s website. Included with the statement was a footnote that stated:

Nothing contained herein should be construed as legal advice or guidance. Employers should consult their own counsel about their compliance responsibilities under the FCRA and applicable state law. First Advantage expressly disclaims any warranties or responsibility or damages associated with or arising out of information provided herein.

Delaware Court Rules that Consent to Merger in Stockholders Agreement Did not Waive Right to Bring Fiduciary Duty Claims

April 15, 2022 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Recently, the Delaware Court of Chancery refused to dismiss an action for post-closing damages stemming from alleged breaches of fiduciary duty brought by former stockholders of Authentix Acquisition Company, Inc. In doing so, the Court rejected the defendants’ arguments that a provision in a stockholders agreement entered by the plaintiffs waived such claims for breaches of fiduciary duties.

The dispute arose out of the sale of Authentix to Blue Water Energy in 2017. The plaintiffs in the case were holders of common stock in Authentix. In connection with their investment in the company, the plaintiffs entered into a Stockholders Agreement which provided that they would “consent to and raise no objections against” any sale of the company approved by Authentix’s board and holders of at least 50% of outstanding shares. In 2017, the board approved a sale to Blue Water Energy over the objection of one of the plaintiffs, a director stockholder. The sale was also approved by holders of more than 50% of the company’s outstanding shares.

In response to the sale, the plaintiffs filed suit for post-closing damages, alleging various breaches of fiduciary duties by three former directors and officers of Authentix as well as the preferred stockholders of Authentix who plaintiffs alleged controlled the company. In response, the defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims arguing that the plaintiffs had waived any right to bring such claims. According to the defendants, because the sale was approved by Authentix’s board and at least 50% of the outstanding shares, the Stockholders Agreement precluded plaintiffs from raising any objections related to the sale. Continue reading ›

Seventh Circuit Rules for Insurer in COVID-related Business Interruption Litigatio

January 8, 2022 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently joined the Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits in ruling in favor of insurers facing COVID-19 business interruption lawsuits. The consolidated appeal dealt with three different claims under Illinois law brought by affected businesses in a diversified range of industries from a dentist office to a hotel.

Each of the plaintiffs was a business that had purchased a commercial-property insurance policy from the Cincinnati Insurance Company. Shortly after the initial outbreak of COVID in Illinois, Governor J.B. Pritzker issued several executive orders that forced each business to shut down or drastically scale back operations. As a result, the businesses claimed to have lost substantial business income and submitted claims to Cincinnati under their policies. Cincinnati denied each of the plaintiff’s insurance claims. Continue reading ›

When Flooding and Other Problems Occur, Developer and Residents Point Fingers

December 29, 2021 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Back in September the resident-run condo board of 432 Park Avenue in Manhattan sued the developer of the building for $125 million to repair 1,500 alleged defects to the luxury condo building. According to the lawsuit, multiple residents experienced flooding in their units and noise as a result of alleged building defects. They also reported elevators that would get stuck and trap residents for hours.

The lawsuit further alleges that the construction issues have affected the building’s management, causing common charges to go up by 39% and insurance premiums to go up 300%.

The building’s developer denies the allegations made in the September lawsuit, arguing the allegations of safety defects were exaggerated, and that many of the problems it acknowledged were either caused and/or exacerbated by the residents themselves. According to the developer, it tried to address some of the issues listed in the residents’ lawsuit, but it claims the condo association either cancelled appointments or blocked access to the building when repairs were scheduled to be made.

As a result, the developer has filed a counter lawsuit against the condo board for defamation. According to the developer’s lawsuit, 90% of the building’s units were sold at the time the condo association filed its lawsuit, but sales dropped dramatically after the residents started making their allegations against the building’s developer. To back up its point, the developer pointed out that, overall, 2019 was a strong year for luxury condo sales, suggesting the lag in sales at the 432 Park Avenue building was most likely due at least in part to resident complaints. The developer has not specified the amount of damages it is seeking in its lawsuit against its residents, but it’s likely to be tens of millions of dollars.

The president of the condo board denies all the allegations made in the developer’s defamation lawsuit. Continue reading ›

Is There a Statute of Limitations on Reclaiming Stolen Artwork?

December 16, 2021 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

The Nazis viewed modern art as “degenerate” and therefore confiscated whatever pieces of art they found to be “degenerate,” but that didn’t stop them from profiting off those pieces of art.

While the Nazi party refused to display artwork it did not approve of in German museums, they saw nothing wrong with selling the artwork to foreign buyers, which is how many pieces of art confiscated by the Nazis came to be displayed in American museums. That puts those museums in a morally uncomfortable position.

While the Nazis claim they “confiscated” works of art from its citizens, the truth is that they stole the artwork and used the proceeds from selling it to fund a fascist regime that killed millions of people.

In general, American museums recognize that artworks “confiscated” by Nazis are stolen, and that the Nazis had no legal right to sell them. As a result, American museums have returned many pieces of stolen artwork to the heirs of their original owners or creators, but the Philadelphia Museum of Art is still hanging on to “Composition with Blue” by Piet Mondrian, which was “confiscated” by the Nazis and sold to an American during WWII.

Mondrian had given the painting to Sophie Küppers, a German art historian and dealer, shortly after he completed it in 1926. The next year, Küppers moved to the Soviet Union, leaving the painting in Hanover at the Provinzialmuseum. After the Nazis came to power, they “confiscated” the painting, whereupon it was given to Karl Buchholz to sell to a foreign buyer.

Buchholz had a business partner, Curt Valentin, who was based in New York, so Buchholz sent the painting to Valentin to be sold in the United States. Valentin sold it to an art collector named Albert E. Gallatin. Continue reading ›