Why Your Lawyer’s Academic Background Matters in the Courtroom Marketing can be bought, but a University of Chicago Law education is earned. When Peter Lubin steps into a courtroom, he brings a level of sophisticated analysis and peer-recognized skill that reshapes the case. Having been named the first “Law Firm of the Year” in DuPage County, we prove every day that elite academic credentials translated into aggressive trial work are the ultimate competitive advantage.
DiTommaso Lubin, P.C. announced today that it has formally launched a series of specialized practice groups designed to serve car dealerships, closely held and family businesses, media and internet clients, and high net worth individuals with both litigation and transactional needs.
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, the protections for minority shareholders or LLC members from breaches of fiduciary duty in closely held companies can be found in a combination of statutory provisions and case law.
Firstly, the Illinois Limited Liability Company Act (805 ILCS 180/15-3) specifies that a member of a manager-managed LLC does not owe a fiduciary duty to the LLC unless they are a manager under the terms of the operating agreement (Katris v. Carroll, 362 Ill.App.3d 1140 (2005)), (Tully v. McLean, 409 Ill.App.3d 659 (2011)). This means that members of an LLC who are not managers do not owe a fiduciary duty to the company or to other members (Katris v. Carroll, 362 Ill.App.3d 1140 (2005), (800 South Wells Commercial LLC v. Cadden, 2018 IL App (1st) 162882 (2018). However, members in a member-managed LLC do owe each other fiduciary duties of loyalty and care (Anest v. Audino, 332 Ill.App.3d 468 (2002), (Schultz v. Sinav Limited, — N.E.3d —- (2024).
Secondly, under the Illinois Business Corporations Act (805 ILCS 5/12.50), a minority shareholder may sue a corporation directly for its dissolution if they can establish that the majority shareholders have acted in a way that is illegal, oppressive, or fraudulent. This provides a means for minority shareholders to recover their investment from the corporation when no other methods are available (Kalabogias v. Georgou, 254 Ill.App.3d 740 (1993).
Moreover, under common law, a controlling shareholder in a cash-out merger owes the minority shareholders the default fiduciary duties of loyalty and due care, and courts apply an exacting standard of judicial review known as “entire fairness” (Schultz v. Sinav Limited, — N.E.3d —- (2024). Additionally, LLCs can contractually impose fiduciary duties on their managers. Furthermore, the Illinois courts have held that minority shareholders in closely held corporations may sue company directors for breaches of fiduciary duty (Elleby v. Forest Alarm Service, Inc., 2020 IL App (1st) 191597 (2020)). Continue reading ›
Yes, punitive damages can be awarded in derivative actions, but these awards often come with certain conditions. Punitive damages are typically awarded when the tort committed involves fraud, actual malice, deliberate violence or oppression, or when the defendant displays willful or grossly negligent behavior that shows a wanton disregard for the rights of others. This means that the defendant’s conduct must show a high degree of moral culpability for such damages to be awarded.
There are specific cases in which courts have allowed for punitive damages in derivative actions. For instance, in Caparos v. Morton, punitive damages were awarded in a derivative action for a breach of fiduciary duty against general partners.
It’s important to note that punitive damages are generally only awarded in the presence of compensatory damages. As established in Groshek v. Trewin and reaffirmed in Epic Systems Corp. v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., punitive damages cannot be awarded when the recovery of compensatory damages is not justified. This suggests that the availability of punitive damages is governed by whether compensatory damages are recoverable, not by whether an “actual injury” has been inflicted.
The case of Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker also suggests that a punitive award should be limited to an amount equal to compensatory damages.
In Illinois, punitive damages have certain restrictions. For instance, they may not be recovered in cases of medical or legal malpractice.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ›
Fiduciary duty law is a crucial legal concept that governs the relationships between individuals or entities entrusted with responsibilities to act in the best interests of others. In the state of Illinois, as in many other jurisdictions, fiduciary duty law plays a central role in various contexts, including business, finance, estate planning, and more. In this blog post, we will explore the key principles and applications of fiduciary duty law in Illinois.
What Is Fiduciary Duty?
Fiduciary duty is a legal obligation that requires an individual or entity, known as a fiduciary, to act in the best interests of another party, known as the beneficiary or principal. The fiduciary duty imposes a high standard of care, loyalty, and honesty on the fiduciary, ensuring they prioritize the beneficiary’s interests above their own.
Key Principles of Fiduciary Duty Law in Illinois
In theory, when people talk about online advertising, they could be talking about advertising on a variety of platforms. In addition to Google, each social media platform has its own advertising options. Amazon and Bing also have advertising. But for most people, online advertising is synonymous with Google Ads. Google has the largest share of online advertising by far, accounting for almost 29% of the total digital advertising revenue generated in 2021.
The U.S. Department of Justice, along with eight states, is suing Google for allegedly abusing its monopoly on digital advertising. According to the lawsuit, Google systematically aimed to control large portions of the high-tech tools involved in digital advertising so they could control the market.
By filing the lawsuit, the Department of Justice is hoping to force Google to sell all of its ad technology products, including the software it uses to buy and sell ads, the marketplace it uses to complete the transactions, and the service it uses to display ads across the internet. The lawsuit is also seeking to force Google to stop engaging in allegedly anticompetitive practices. Continue reading ›
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 ›
Chicago Business Litigation Lawyer Blog