Business Disputes

FTC Wins Judgment Against Company Engaged in Student Loan Fraud

July 26, 2020 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

The FTC sued a student loan debt relief company that promised consumers that it would reduce their monthly student loan payments, or arrange for their student debts to be forgiven in whole or part by their student loan servicers. Instead, the company kept most of the money sent to them by the consumers and failed to negotiate with the servicers or remit the payments in a timely fashion. The district court granted summary judgment to the FTC and issued a permanent injunction against the defendants, as well as a monetary judgment for more than $27 million in restitution.

The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment to the Federal Trade Commission in a suit filed against Elegant Solutions, Inc. The FTC filed a complaint against Elegant Solutions for a permanent injunction and other equitable relief pursuant to § 13(b) and 19 of the Federal Trade Commission Act and 57(b) of the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act.

The FTC’s complaint charged that the defendants participated in acts or practices that violated § 5(a) of the FTC Act by representing in advertising that consumers who purchased the defendants’ debt relief services would be enrolled in a repayment plan that would reduce their monthly payments on their student loans to a lower, specific amount, or have their student loan balances forgiven in whole or part; that most or all of the consumers’ monthly payments to the defendants would be applied toward consumers’ student loans; and that the defendants would assume responsibility for the servicing of consumers’ student loans. The district court found that, in numerous instances in which the defendants made such representations, they were false or not substantiated. The panel determined that these representations constituted a deceptive act or practice in violation of § 5(a) of the FTC Act. Continue reading ›

Family’s Legal Dispute Over Inherited Restaurant Chain Finally Ends

July 19, 2020 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Gary Ganzi and his sister, Claire Ganzi Breen, sued their cousins back in 2012 for allegedly cheating them out of millions of dollars in royalties over the course of more than 40 years. A state court judge in Manhattan sided with the Ganzi siblings, saying the actions of the defendants, Walter Ganzi Jr. and Bruce Bozzi Jr., constituted a breach of fiduciary duty in which they prioritized their own financial wellbeing above the responsibility they bore their shareholders.

The defendants are the grandsons of the original founders of the iconic Palm steakhouse, and together they own a controlling share of the company, Just One More Restaurant Corp., which owns the chain of restaurants. They have opened more than 20 Palm restaurants across the U.S. and have licensed intellectual property related to the restaurant, including the right to use the name, logo, and the look and feel of the original Palm. The Ganzi siblings own all that intellectual property and the defendants allegedly licensed that property from them every time they opened a new Palm restaurant.

The price of licensing that intellectual property was set at a flat rate more than four decades ago, and as a result, the Ganzi siblings have been paid $6,000 in licensing fees for every new Palm restaurant that opens, but they claim that it’s worth much more. Continue reading ›

Saks’s Parent Company Denies Accusations from Lenders of Conducting a Secret Corporate Shell Game

July 12, 2020 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Hudson’s Bay (HBC), the Canadian retail company that owns Saks, among other high-end stores, has been sued by lenders who claim the reorganization of the company that happened earlier this year was conducted in an attempt to set up a secret corporate shell game that has robbed the credit that exists as insurance on the $850 million loan the plaintiffs have invested in the company.

The lawsuit centers around the fact that, as the owner of stores like Saks and Lord & Taylor, HBC was responsible for guaranteeing payment on all loans for the stores, including making sure the rent was paid if the stores themselves were in financial distress or unable to make rent for any other reason.

Earlier this year, HBC formed a new Bermuda corporation, which is owned by shareholders with a controlling interest in HBC, as well as executives at the highest levels of HBC’s corporate hierarchy. According to the plaintiff, Situs Holdings, this transfer of assets is not only improper but also violates the loan agreement and puts at risk the company’s ability to repay the loan.

HBC denies all the allegations, claiming the restructuring amounted to little more than a change in name and some paper shuffling. It also alleges that Situs never had any claim on the assets of HBC that were reassigned in the course of the restructuring process. The Canadian retail company insists that Situs’s reaction to the restructuring is far beyond what the restructuring actually accomplishes and that the plaintiff’s claims that HBC allegedly conducted this restructuring in secret, deliberately keeping it concealed from Situs, are likewise false. Continue reading ›

Streamline Boats’s Business Partner Allegedly Defrauded Investors

July 8, 2020 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

If someone is accused of defrauding investors in one city, does that mean that person can’t do business with another company in another city? Especially before the allegations of fraud have been determined by a court of law?

That’s the question James “Woody” Dillard’s attorneys and business partners are asking as investors who were allegedly defrauded by Dillard try to claim potential vendors for Dillard and his business partners should have all their facts in order before signing on the dotted line.

Dillard has recently partnered with Streamline Boats of Hialeah, Florida, which makes semi-custom fishing boats. Although the company is only a couple years old, it has already changed locations several times and is currently looking to sign a lease for warehouse space at the Port of Pensacola. The city of Pensacola has put the lease on hold while they investigate.

Specifically, the city is worried about styrene, a foul-smelling by-product from working with fiberglass, which is a prominent material used to make all kinds of boats these days. Having made strides in reducing their emissions and their impact on the environment, the city is concerned that having a boat manufacturer in their warehouse district will undo much of the work they’ve done towards making and maintaining a more eco-friendly city.

Sanchez, one of the managers of Streamline Boats, claims they use very little styrene in the production of their boats, and that they invest heavily in the warehouse space they use to make sure they don’t stink it up. Essentially, they strive to become ideal tenants.

But two investors who invested in another of Dillard’s business ventures claim emissions should be the least of the city’s concerns when deciding whether to approve the lease. Continue reading ›

ARDC Hearing Board Recommends 2 year Suspension for Attorney Joel Brodsky

June 23, 2020 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

The ARDC Hearing Board recommended a two-year suspension for attorney Joel Brodsky due in large part to a case where his own attorney Joe “the Shark” Lopez admitted that Brodsky engaged in “Rambo” tactics. The Hearing Board found based on clear and convincing evidence that Brodsky harrassed opposing counsel and the Plaintiff’s expert witness with baseless claims. It held:

We find the Administrator proved a violation of Rule 3.1 by clear and convincing evidence. Moreover, we concur with the district court’s view of Respondent’s actions as “wildly inappropriate” and the Seventh Circuit’s opinion that his conduct was “beyond the pale.”

As to Brodsky’s failure to provide any meaningful apology or show true remorse the Hearing Board had this to say:

Insurer Not Required to Defend Distributor that Fraudulently Shipped Uncertified Lumber

April 22, 2020 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

A building contractor in Minnesota ordered a specific brand of flameproof lumber from a Chicago distributor of commercial building materials. Unbeknownst to the contractor, the distributor substituted its in-house brand of lumber in the order. The in-house brand of lumber had not been certified to meet the safety standards required by the architect of the buildings and the contractor was later required to rip out the lumber and replace it with new material. The contractor sued the distributor. The distributor’s insurance company then sought a judgment that it was not required to defend the distributor. The district court and the appellate court agreed, finding that the actions of the distributor were not covered under its insurance policy.

Chicago Flameproof is an Illinois-based distributor of commercial building materials, including fire retardant and treated lumber (FRT). Chicago Flameproof maintained general liability insurance through Lexington Insurance Company. Under the policy, Lexington had the right and duty to defend Chicago Flameproof against any suit seeking covered damages, but no duty to defend against any suit seeking uncovered damages.

The policy defined an occurrence as an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions. The policy also defined “property damage” as physical injury to tangible property, including all resulting loss of that property, or loss of use of tangible property that is not physically injured. Chicago Flameproof sold lumber to Minnesota-based residential and commercial contractors JL Schwieters Construction, Inc. and JL Schwieters Building Supply, Inc. Schwieters then contracted with two building contractors, Big-D Construction Midwest, LLC and DLC Residential, LLC to provide labor and material for the framing and paneling for four building projects in Minnesota. The architectural firm on all of the projects, Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc. required that FRT lumber meeting the requirements set forth in the International Building Code be used for the exterior walls of each building. Continue reading ›

After Hospital Refused to Pay Consulting Firm, Court Found Contract Existed and Firm Entitled to Damages

April 18, 2020 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

A consulting company agreed to perform cost-reduction work for a hospital. The agreement it had with the hospital specified that the hospital could hire the consultancy to perform additional work outside of the scope of the agreement. The hospital did so, hiring the consultancy to prepare an RFP document and negotiate with a potential equipment supplier. After the process was completed, the hospital refused to pay the consultancy for the additional work. The consultancy sued, and the trial court determined that a contract implied in fact existed between the two companies and the hospital was required to pay for the additional work. The appellate panel determined that the trial court had not erred, and it affirmed the decision.

In 2014, Northwest Community Hospital hired ESP Global, an equipment maintenance consultancy company, to assist Northwest in reducing its equipment expenses. Peter Vincer, the president and owner of ESP testified that his company typically assists clients using a two-step approach: first ESP conducts an initial assessment of the client’s equipment service expenditures, and then it recommends cost-reduction strategies accordingly. During the second step, ESP assists the client in implementing the prior recommendation. ESP charges a flat fee for the first step and a contingency for the second step, which is calculated based on the client’s actual savings.

The two parties entered into a contract in June 2014. ESP completed the initial assessment required by the contract in early July 2014, and Northwest paid ESP $10,000. After this, Northwest expressed interest in obtaining additional services from ESP. Specifically, the hospital wanted assistance with a request for proposal that it intended to send to equipment suppliers. The two companies communicated over emailed and agreed to prepare an RFP draft, in exchange for 10% of Northwest’s savings from the RFP over a five-year period. Vincer later sent the RFP draft to Jac Higgins, the interim executive director of Northwest’s supply chain. After Northwest approved the RFP, ESP distributed it to the prospective vendors. Higgins’ employment with Northwest was later terminated. Continue reading ›

Customers’ Suit Against Insurer Over Rate Hikes Not Barred

April 12, 2020 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Longtime customers of Allstate Insurance Corporation alleged that Allstate determined they were willing to pay higher prices than new customers with similar risk profiles and started hiking their auto insurance rates as a result. The customers sued Allstate, alleging that Allstate failed to disclose its practice of optimizing rates in this fashion when it filed its rates with the Illinois Department of Insurance. Allstate attempted to have the case dismissed under the filed rate and primary jurisdiction doctrines, but the circuit court denied the motion and the appellate panel affirmed.

Allstate Corporation sells property and casualty insurance, including private passenger automobile insurance, to consumers in Illinois. Several customers who had purchased insurance from Allstate for more than two decades sued Allstate, alleging that Allstate illegally increased prices for their insurance under a practice called “price optimization,” after it determined that longtime customers would be more willing to absorb price hikes than new customers. The plaintiffs alleged that as a result they were charged higher prices than new customers who presented the same risk and that Allstate’s use of price optimization was not disclosed in its rate filings with the Illinois Department of Insurance.

In the trial court, Allstate filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the action was barred by the filed rate doctrine and the primary jurisdiction doctrine. Following a hearing, the circuit court denied Allstate’s motion to dismiss. The court determined that Allstate failed to establish that the plaintiffs’ complaint should be dismissed under either the filed rate doctrine or the primary jurisdiction doctrine. The circuit court noted that Illinois is unique in that insurers may select their own rates and merely inform the Illinois Department of Insurance of their selection. The circuit court then granted Allstate’s motion to certify the questions of whether either the filed rate doctrine or the primary jurisdiction doctrine barred plaintiffs’ suit to the appellate court and the appellate court granted interlocutory review. Continue reading ›

Business Owners Whose Insurance Carriers Won’t Pay on Business Interruption Policies for Coronavirus Call Us

March 31, 2020 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Attention Business Owners Who Purchased Business Interruption Insurance Coverage. If your insurance carrier is refusing to provide business interruption coverage for coronavirus then call at 630-333-0333 or email us. We are investigating this unfortunate practice and will be filing lawsuits in the right case. We have handled a number of wrongful denial of insurance coverage cases in the past and are looking to file individual or class action cases on this if your carrier has wrongfully denied coverage. Illinois and other states have enacted statutes to protect your business from this type of wrongdoing.

Super Lawyers named Chicago business dispute lawyers Peter Lubin a Super Lawyer and Patrick Austermuehle a Rising Star in the Categories of Class Action, Business Litigation, and Consumer Rights Litigation. DiTommaso Lubin’s Chicago auto fraud lawyers near Oak Brook and Naperville have over thirty years of experience in litigating complex class action, insurance and dealer termination, breach of contract, copyright, partnership, and shareholder oppression suits, non-compete agreement, trademark and libel suits, consumer rights and many different types of business and commercial litigation disputes. Our Naperville, Schaumburg and Lake Forest insurance coverage and consumer and business protection attorneys near Chicago litigate insurance coverage disputes against major insurance carriers. We also assist Chicago, Evanston and Oak Brook area used businesses who are victims of fraud and consumer fraud. You can contact one of the insurance coverage and business rights attorneys near Chicago and Oak Brook by calling (630) 333-0333. You can also contact us online here.

Couple Not Entitled to Damages From Difference in Short Sale Price in Contract

March 12, 2020 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

A couple who defaulted on their mortgage filed suit against prospective purchasers who dropped out of a short sale agreement shortly before closing. Though the couple later sold the property at a different short sale, the appellate panel determined that the $35,000 difference in the prices was a loss attributable to the bank that owned the mortgage. As such, the panel affirmed the decision of the district court regarding the calculation of damages.

Hartwell P. Morse III and Deborah B. Morse owned property commonly known as 282 Stonegate in Clarendon Hills, Illinois. The property was encumbered by two mortgages, one held by Chase Bank and the other held by PNC Bank. The Morses defaulted on both mortgages. In August 2015, the couple entered into a contract for the sale of the property to Anthony Donati and Concetta Donati for $410,000.

The contract contained a “short sale addendum” which indicated that the plaintiffs were selling the property for less than they owed on their mortgages. The sale was contingent upon the plaintiffs’ obtaining PNC bank’s consent. In September 2015, the bank consented to the sale, provided that it received all of the proceeds and that the plaintiffs received $0 at closing. The bank also agreed not to pursue a deficiency judgment against the plaintiffs. Continue reading ›