Articles Posted in Shareholder Disputes

|

When Majority Owners Turn on Their Partners

In closely held corporations and limited-liability companies, majority owners sometimes forget that they owe duties to their partners. We see the same pattern again and again: a founder who built a business is gradually cut out of key decisions, denied access to financial information, removed from management, and eventually offered a take-it-or-leave-it buyout at a fraction of what the stake is actually worth.

These “squeeze-out” and “freeze-out” tactics can be subtle—changing compensation structures, diverting opportunities to new entities, or refusing to declare dividends while insiders pay themselves oversized salaries. In more extreme cases, they involve outright fraud: phony invoices to related companies, off-the-books revenue, or manipulated financial statements designed to hide the business’s true value.

We also regularly defend owners wrongfully accused on using freeze-out tactics.

Combining Oppression, Fraud, and Consumer-Fraud Theories

Our firm regularly represents minority owners who have been frozen out of the businesses they helped build controlling owners who allegedly have done that. Depending on the facts, we may bring claims for shareholder oppression, breach of fiduciary duty, common-law fraud, unjust enrichment, and, where appropriate, claims under statutes such as the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/2, when deceptive tactics are used to induce an unfair buyout. We also are experienced at litigating affirmative defenses to these types of claims.

The same kinds of deceptive practices we see in consumer transactions—omitting material facts, presenting misleading financials, and papering over obvious discrepancies—often appear in freeze-out cases. When majority owners present inflated or deflated numbers to justify squeezing out a partner, we treat that as serious misconduct, not “hard bargaining.”

The Role of Forensic Accountants in Freeze-Out Cases

In many freeze-out disputes, the key question is simple to ask but hard to answer: what is the company really worth, and how much value has been diverted? To answer that, we bring in forensic accountants who are experienced in partner and shareholder litigation. They can:

  • Analyze financial statements, tax returns, and bank records to identify hidden income and excessive insider compensation;
  • Reconstruct the economic value of the business at key points in time; and
  • Quantify damages from diverted opportunities, self-dealing, and other fiduciary breaches.

We have worked with experts whose prior cases resulted in courts awarding tens of millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages to defrauded business owners after proving that they were induced into or kept in unfair deals by false financial information. That experience informs how we structure our own freeze-out and squeeze-out cases.

Remedies: More Than Just a Buyout

In some situations, the right remedy is a fair-value buyout of the minority owner’s interest, supervised by the court and informed by independent valuation. In others, injunctive relief to stop ongoing diversion of assets or to restore a client to management is critical. Where fraud or willful misconduct is involved, we also seek punitive damages to deter similar conduct in the future.

Because freeze-out tactics can overlap with libel—such as when majority owners make false accusations about a partner to justify their removal—we are prepared to add defamation claims when warranted. Our experience protecting reputations in offline and online settings gives us additional tools when smear campaigns accompany financial misconduct.

What Sets Our Freeze-Out Practice Apart

Our work in squeeze-out and freeze-out cases stands out because we:

  • Combine corporate, commercial, and tort theories to put maximum pressure on wrongdoers;
  • Use forensic accounting early to understand where the money has gone and what the business is truly worth;
  • Are comfortable litigating cases that involve complex deal documents, multi-entity structures, and overlapping personal and business relationships; and
  • Understand that for many clients, these cases are about more than money—they are about vindication and the ability to move forward.

That mix of legal and financial sophistication is especially important in closely held businesses, where personal relationships and family dynamics often collide with corporate governance. Continue reading ›

|

Summary: After a founder dies, survivors often pivot from “we have a buy‑sell” to “we can force a redemption under the articles.” Courts care about doing it right—and about protecting the estate’s reasonable expectations.

Start with the contract you actually signed.
A written buy‑sell controls if it exists and is enforceable. Many set a fixed price (or formula), a target closing window, and a note if cash isn’t available—plus interim limits on dividends/comp and inspection rights for the estate until paid. If the company refuses to close or withholds life‑insurance proceeds tagged to the buy‑sell, specific performance is often the cleanest remedy.

If you rely on the Articles, follow the Articles.
Articles that restrict transfers typically require a written election within a set period, dueling appraisals (and sometimes a third), and a closing sequence tied to price determination and insurance proceeds. Skipping these steps risks having a “redemption” declared void ab initio.

Continue reading ›

|

Summary: Derivative suits let owners enforce the company’s rights when insiders won’t. Done right, they’re powerful. Done wrong, they’re dismissed. Here’s a field guide for LLCs and closely held corporations.

Who can sue and when?

LLCs: Members may sue derivatively under 805 ILCS 180/40‑1 when managers/members harm the company. Relief can include restitution, constructive trusts, injunctions, and fees—plus orders to stop unilateral withdrawals or restore records access.

Corporations: Shareholders proceed derivatively; the entity is the real party in interest. Oppression claims (for corporations) are addressed separately under 805 ILCS 5/12.56.

Pleading essentials (don’t get 2‑615’ed):

  • State your demand (or futility) with facts. If you didn’t ask the company to act, plead why demand would be futile with concrete details, not speculation. Judges read this closely on a motion to dismiss.

  • Name the company as a nominal defendant. It’s indispensable. Forget this and the case can’t proceed.

  • Mind “information and belief.” If you use it, plead the specific facts that support that belief and what you did to obtain records (or why you couldn’t). Courts reject fishing expeditions.

  • Don’t double‑count damages. Separate derivative (company) harms from individual claims; if your “personal” count just repackages company damages, expect dismissal.

  • Use the records statutes before you sue.

Continue reading ›

|

Under the Illinois Uniform Partnership Act (IUPA), all partners are liable for any wrongful act or omission by any partner (In re Keck, Mahin & Cate, 274 B.R. 740 (2002)), (Bane v. Ferguson, 707 F.Supp. 988 (1989)). This includes acts that occur in the ordinary course of the partnership’s business or are authorized by the partners (Bane v. Ferguson, 707 F.Supp. 988 (1989)), (In re Ascher, 141 B.R. 652 (1992))[3]. The liability is not limited even for “innocent” partners.

As for the protection against cheating, partners are fiduciaries for one another under Illinois law (Bane v. Ferguson, 707 F.Supp. 988 (1989)). This means they have a duty to exercise the utmost good faith and honesty in all partnership dealings (Johnson v. Woldman, 158 B.R. 992 (1993)). Particularly, the Uniform Partnership Act in Illinois imposes a trust duty (Johnson v. Woldman, 158 B.R. 992 (1993)), (Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Braemoor Associates, 686 F.2d 550 (1982)). It mandates that every partner must account to the partnership for any benefit and hold as a trustee for it any profits derived by him/her without the consent of the other partners from any transaction connected with the formation, conduct, or liquidation of the partnership, or from any use by him/her of its property.

However, this fiduciary duty is only recognized when a partner derives profits without the consent of the other partners (Johnson v. Woldman, 158 B.R. 992 (1993)). Also, the liability of any partner does not extend to former partners. Additionally, partners cannot sue their fellow partners for acts that occur in the ordinary course of business or are authorized by the co-partners until there has been a final settlement of partnership accounts (In re Ascher, 141 B.R. 652 (1992)).

If a partner believes that he/she has been cheated, the appropriate remedy to seek under the Illinois Partnership Act could be an accounting, especially if the issue between partners requires an accounting.

In federal cases, the principle is generally the same. For instance, in the case of In re Keck, Mahin & Cate, it was established that under Illinois law and the Agreement, partners are liable for claims arising before or during the time they were partners (In re Keck, Mahin & Cate, 274 B.R. 740 (2002)). Continue reading ›

|

Choosing the right law firm to protect your minority interests in a closely held company is crucial, particularly when it comes to addressing breaches of fiduciary duty. DiTommaso Lubin is a firm that you might consider for several reasons:

  1. Concentration in Business Litigation: Firms like DiTommaso Lubin that concentrate in business litigation are likely to have a deep understanding of the complexities involved in disputes within closely held companies. This specialization can be beneficial in effectively navigating the legal landscape to protect minority shareholders.
  2. Experience with Fiduciary Duties: The protection of minority interests often hinges on issues related to fiduciary duties. A firm experienced in this area will understand the nuances of fiduciary responsibilities and how breaches can occur, which is critical in formulating a robust legal strategy.
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 ›

|

In Illinois, a derivative lawsuit can be filed by an individual shareholder or a member of a limited liability company (LLC) to enforce a right that belongs to the corporation or the LLC (Silver v. Allard, 16 F.Supp.2d 966 (1998)), (Pistone v. Carl, Not Reported in N.E. Rptr. (2020). The aim of such a lawsuit is to protect the interests of the corporation or the LLC from the misconduct of its directors and managers (Silver v. Allard, 16 F.Supp.2d 966 (1998)).

There are certain prerequisites for filing a derivative lawsuit. Firstly, the shareholder or member must make a demand upon the board of directors to enforce a corporate right (Silver v. Allard, 16 F.Supp.2d 966 (1998)). However, this demand requirement can be excused in certain situations. For instance, if the shareholders can demonstrate that the directors were aware of the misconduct but consciously chose not to act, the demand can be excused. In such cases, the plaintiffs would effectively be arguing the futility of such a demand. It’s important to note, as per Illinois choice of law rules, that the pre-suit demand requirement is governed by the law of Delaware in the case of corporations incorporated there (Wells v. Reed, — N.E.3d —- (2024). Continue reading ›

|

Yes, taking excessive compensation can indeed violate a managing member or majority shareholder’s fiduciary duties. Case law supports this assertion. In Fleming v. Louvers International, Inc., the court found that a majority shareholder violated his fiduciary duties by taking excessive compensation, depriving a minority shareholder of his rightful distributions. This conduct was seen as a breach of both his common-law fiduciary duty and his duty under section 12.56(a)(3) of the Act, and also constituted constructive fraud.

The case of Kovac v. Barron highlighted the defendant shareholder who had the corporations pay him and his wife millions in excessive compensation, which was then concealed by disguising the payments as “contract labor” on the corporations’ tax returns.

Similarly, in Halperin v. Halperin, it was held that the payment of excessive compensation and the concealment of the amount of compensation received by the officers were breaches of fiduciary duty. Concealing compensation amounts from shareholders could still constitute a breach of fiduciary duty, even if the compensation was not found to be excessive. Continue reading ›

|

In Illinois, the concept of LLC member or shareholder oppression is generally conceived as actions that are “illegal, oppressive, or fraudulent”. For shareholders of a corpo”ration that has no shares listed on a national securities exchange or regularly traded in a market maintained by one or more members of a national or affiliated securities association, the Illinois Business Corporation Act (IBCA) states that the Circuit Court may intervene if it is established that the directors or those in control of the corporation have acted, are acting, or will act in a manner that is illegal, oppressive, or fraudulent with respect to the petitioning shareholder.

In the context of LLC members, the Illinois Limited Liability Company Act (805 ILCS 180/35-1) provides for the dissolution of the company upon the application by a member or transferee of a distributional interest, upon entry of a judicial decree that the managers or those members in control of the company have acted or are acting in a manner that is oppressive and was, is, or will be directly harmful to the applican].

However, it’s important to note that in a manager-managed LLC, a member who is not also a manager does not violate a duty or obligation under the Act or under the operating agreement merely because the member’s conduct furthers the member’s own interest.

The specific conduct that courts have found to be oppressive varies. Some cases have found that conduct is oppressive if it is “arbitrary, overbearing and heavy-handed”. Other cases have found that even where corporate formalities are observed, the payment of a high amount of compensation to corporate officers, while refusing to pay dividends to benefit minority shareholders, can be considered oppressive conduct, depending on the corporation’s overall financial picture. Continue reading ›

|

In the complex and often contentious world of business, minority shareholders and LLC members can sometimes find themselves sidelined, oppressed, or unfairly treated. In such situations, securing legal representation that is not only skilled in business law but also deeply understands the nuances of minority shareholder and LLC member rights is critical. DiTommaso Lubin, a firm with a robust practice in Illinois, stands out as a prime choice for minority owners seeking justice and equitable treatment. Here’s why:

Extensive Experience in Business and Shareholder Law

DiTommaso Lubin has spent decades navigating the intricacies of business and shareholder litigation, making them seasoned veterans in the field. Their deep experience extends to handling cases of shareholder and LLC member oppression—a niche that requires a detailed understanding of both state laws and the delicate dynamics of business operations and fiduciary duty law. Their track record of successfully resolving disputes, both in and out of court, reassures potential clients of their capability and strategic expertise.

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