Articles Tagged with breach of fiduciary duty

|

You and your partner built this together, fifty-fifty, on a handshake and a shared idea of where the company was going. The split worked until it didn’t. Now you disagree about everything that matters, the strategy, the money, whether to sell, and neither of you can outvote the other. Decisions stall. Good employees notice. The company that took years to build is freezing in place while the two of you stare across the table, each certain the other is the problem.

A deadlock feels like a trap because the thing that made the partnership fair, equal ownership, is now the thing that paralyzes it. Illinois does not leave equal owners stranded. The law gives a deadlocked owner a path out, and it is rarely the mutual destruction each side fears. If you are staring at a 50/50 split that has stopped working, the question is not whether you are stuck. It is which exit serves you best.

What does Illinois consider a corporate deadlock?

Continue reading ›

|

Your partner started a second company. You learned about it from a customer, not from him, and now you notice that the easy jobs still come to your shared business while the lucrative ones quietly go to his. He says there is nothing wrong with a little outside work. You suspect he has been competing with the company you own together, using its people and its relationships to do it. The question is whether the law sees a betrayal or just ordinary business.

In Illinois, partners and co-owners are not strangers dealing at arm’s length. They stand in a fiduciary relationship, the most demanding standard the law imposes outside a trust, and conduct that would be unremarkable between competitors can be a breach between partners. Knowing where that line sits tells you whether you have a grievance or a case, and it is just as important if you are the partner being accused.

What does an Illinois business partner owe his partners?

Continue reading ›

|

You asked a simple question. Where did the money go? You own a piece of the company, the profits that used to reach you have thinned, and you want to see the financials that would explain why. The controlling owner’s answer is a wall. He tells you the records are confidential, or none of your concern, or available only if you drop your objections first. He is betting that you do not know the law gives you a key to that door.

It does. Illinois grants shareholders and LLC members an enforceable right to inspect the books and records of the company they own, and it backs that right with penalties and fee awards when a company refuses without cause. An inspection demand is often the single most useful first move in a partnership or shareholder dispute, because everything else you might claim depends on the facts those records contain.

What records can an Illinois shareholder demand?

Continue reading ›

|

You find it by accident. A vendor mentions a company you have never heard of, and a week of digging shows that your co-owner has been routing the business’s best work through a second entity he owns alone. Or the bank statements show payments to a relative for work no one did. You are furious, and you are ready to sue. Then your lawyer asks a question that changes everything. Is this your claim, or the company’s?

That question is not a technicality. In Illinois, getting it wrong can end a meritorious case before it is heard. Some wrongs done inside a company belong to you personally to sue over. Others belong to the company itself, and you may pursue them only derivatively, by stepping into the company’s shoes after clearing a set of procedural gates. Knowing the difference is the difference between recovering and being dismissed.

Direct or derivative: whose claim is it?

Continue reading ›

|

You own thirty percent of the company, and for the first ten years that felt like a partnership. Then the managing member stopped returning your calls. The distributions shrank and then stopped, though the company is plainly doing well. You are no longer copied on decisions. The manager’s salary has grown to a number that happens to absorb most of the profit you used to share. You are still a member on paper, but you have been pushed to the door without anyone touching the lock.

This is a freeze-out, and the Illinois Limited Liability Company Act gives a minority member real remedies for it. The managing member is counting on you believing that whoever controls the company controls your fate. The statute says otherwise. If you are the frozen-out member, the law gives you leverage the manager would rather you never discover.

What counts as oppression of an LLC member in Illinois?

Continue reading ›

|

The offer to buy your shares arrives as a single page. You built a quarter of the company over fifteen years, and the letter values your stake at a number that would not cover two good years of the distributions you used to take. The controlling owner calls it generous. His accountant has trimmed it once for your lack of control, trimmed it again because the shares are hard to sell, and used a valuation date that happens to fall right after the worst quarter in the company’s history. The message is that this is the market speaking, and that you should take the number before it falls.

It is not the market speaking. It is a negotiating position dressed up as an appraisal. Illinois does not measure a departing owner’s shares by what a stranger would pay for a powerless slice of a private company. It measures them by fair value, a legal standard with decades of case law behind it, and that standard is usually far kinder to the owner being bought out than the first offer admits. If you are a minority owner staring at a lowball buyout, the law is more on your side than the letter wants you to believe.

What does “fair value” mean for a minority owner in Illinois?

Continue reading ›

|

The certified letter arrives on a Tuesday, and it is written to sound like a verdict. Your minority shareholder, the one who stopped coming to work two years ago but never stopped cashing distributions, now says you have frozen him out. His lawyer accuses you of oppression, breach of fiduciary duty, and self-dealing, and demands that the company buy back his quarter of the business at a price his accountant built by taking last year’s best month, annualizing it, and ignoring every liability on the books. The letter closes with a deadline and a threat to ask a judge to dissolve the company you spent three decades building. The number at the bottom reads less like a settlement than a ransom.

The valuation a departing owner demands on the first day is almost always the number that fits the case he wishes he had. It is not the case Illinois law gives him. Shareholder oppression is a real claim with real remedies, but the statute that creates it and the decades of Illinois decisions interpreting it leave the majority far more room than the demand letter admits. The owners who come through these fights with the company intact are the ones who learn early how much of the claim is leverage and how much is law.

Illinois gives a minority owner of a closely held corporation a menu of remedies under section 12.56 of the Business Corporation Act, 805 ILCS 5/12.56, when those in control act in a manner that is illegal, oppressive, or fraudulent. The Illinois Limited Liability Company Act, 805 ILCS 180/35-1, gives a comparable remedy to an oppressed member. Dissolution sits at the bottom of that menu, as a last resort. The remedy that usually controls is a buyout of the complaining owner’s interest at its fair value, and that single phrase, “fair value,” is where most of these cases are actually decided.

Continue reading ›

|

The Pedigree Gap

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.

Modern Discovery & E-Discovery

Continue reading ›

|

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 ›

|

The Dream of Owning a Business — and the Nightmare That Followed

Some of our business clients come to us after realizing that the dream business they purchased is nothing like what they were sold. One of our current matters involves a small investor who purchased a business after reviewing glossy marketing materials, tax returns, and financial statements provided by the seller and a business broker.

On paper, the business appeared to be thriving: strong revenue, steady growth, and attractive profit margins. The buyer agreed to pay a substantial price based on those numbers and on the seller’s written warranties in an asset purchase agreement that the financials were “accurate” when provided and at closing.

Shortly after the sale, the new owner began comparing the point-of-sale (POS) data to the historic financials. The numbers did not come close to matching. The prior owner had used numerous no-tax transactions or other sleights of hand o inflate apparent sales. A later reconciliation showed the alleged inflated sales figures.

Our lawsuit in that matter alleged common-law fraud, violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/2, and breach of contract. The theory is straightforward: the seller and broker supplied false financial statements and a misleading sales materials, failed to disclose critical POS discrepancies, and then warranted in the purchase agreement that the financials were accurate.

815 ILCS 505/2 declares it unlawful to use deception, misrepresentation, or the concealment of material facts in trade or commerce. By overstating revenues and hiding expenses, the seller engaged in precisely the sort of conduct the statute is designed to prevent. Those statutory claims complement our common-law fraud counts> In cases like this and other consumer fraud cases, we seek both rescission and damages, including punitive damages where the conduct is willful and part of a pattern. If the plaintiff is an individual we also seek aggravation inconvenience and stress damages.

The Role of Forensic Accounting and POS Analysis

In many business-fraud and corporate freeze out and breach of fiduciary duty matters, our ability to tell a compelling story depends on the numbers. We work closely with forensic accountants who examine POS data, bank records, tax returns, and internal spreadsheets. They quantify how much the revenues were inflated and how that inflation translated into an overpayment for the business or in case of corporate freeze otu cases excessive paymetns to the controlling managers through expense account or other types of over compensation..

Because we regularly collaborate with forensic accountants in fraud and breach-of-fiduciary-duty cases, we know how to translate technical accounting conclusions into plain language that judges and juries can understand.

Strategic Remedies: Damages, Rescission, or Both

Buyers who are defrauded into purchasing a business often have a choice: seek rescission and unwind the transaction, or affirm the deal and sue for the difference between what they paid and what the business was actually worth. In our cases, we often preserve both options, making clear in our pleadings that our client may elect rescission before trial.

We also pursue punitive damages based on the willful nature of the misconduct: the seller and broker did not simply make a mistake, they allegedly used fake sales entries and omitted sales tax on numerous transactions to pump up the numbers in a way that would be obvious to any experienced industry player. That type of conduct often justifies a substantial punitive award on top of actual damages and also sets the stage for stress and aggravation damages.

What Makes Our Firm Effective in Deal-Fraud Litigation

Our practice combines commercial litigation, consumer-fraud work, and a deep bench of relationships with forensic experts. In deal-fraud cases like this, we typically:

  • Obtain and analyze POS data, merchant statements, and bank records;
  • Compare tax returns and internal financials against source data;
  • Depose brokers, accountants, and sellers about what they knew and when; and
  • Use consumer-fraud statutes like 815 ILCS 505/2 to pursue fee-shifting.

Because we also handle business squeeze-out and freeze-out cases, we are familiar with disputes among partners and shareholders that often arise when one owner discovers that another brought them into a business based on false numbers. 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