Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Respected Law Professor’s Insights on Corporate Freeze-Out Litigation

July 16, 2008 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

Experienced Illinois business litigators probably recognize Professor Charles W. Murdock of the Loyola University Chicago School of Law as a former Illinois Deputy Attorney General, former Loyola Dean and expert on Illinois business law. Given his status, it was with great interest that we read some of his scholarship on the concept of fairness in conflicts between shareholders or other parties interested in a business, especially in situations where the majority is using its greater power against a minority. These papers are a few years old, but they directly address some of the issues that are important to our firm and our clients in corporate freeze-out or squeeze-out litigation, breach of fiduciary duty and other internal business disputes in closely held companies.

In Fairness and Good Faith as a Precept in the Law of Corporations and Other Business Organizations, 36 Loy.U.Chi. L.J. 551 (2005), Murdock addresses the fiduciary duty of good faith and fairness that controlling interests of a business owe to minority interests. Noting that this internal duty is a fairly recent legal phenomenon, he surveys caselaw on the subject from around the country that applies to closely held corporations, public corporations and LLCs. Noting that the Uniform Limited Liability Company Act (ULLCA), a model law adopted by several states, doesn’t include language that gives members of an LLC fiduciary duties to one another, he praises Illinois for modifying that language to protect members in the updated Limited Liability Company Act.

Another of Murdock’s articles that directly addresses issues important to us is 2004’s Squeeze-outs, Freeze-outs and Discounts: Why Is Illinois in the Minority in Protecting Shareholder Interests?, 35 Loyola Chicago L.J.737 (2004). As you might expect from the title, Murdock argues in the article that Illinois business law, despite its “pro-shareholder” reputation, fails to protect minority shareholders in “fair value” proceedings. (Fair value proceedings are intended to resolve conflicts when majority shareholders want to do something that would harm the minority shareholders.) Until recently, those proceedings often led to marketability and liquidity discounts imposed on minorities, and the courts usually allowed it — giving rise to Murdock’s criticism. However, amendments to the Illinois Business Corporation Act in 2007 prohibited these discounts “absent extraordinary circumstances.” While the article is now out of date, fortunately for minority shareholders in Illinois, it still provides good arguments for the change and a survey of common circumstances under which fair value proceedings might arise.

Missed Deadline Bars Stolen Corporate Opportunities Claim, Appeals Court Rules

July 15, 2008 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

The doctrine of laches bars a plaintiff from bringing a stolen corporate opportunities lawsuit, the Illinois First District Court of Appeal has ruled. Lozman v. Putnam, No. 1- 06-0861 (February 18, 2008).

Plaintiff Fane Lozman and defendant Gerald Putnam met in 1986 as employees of the same Chicago securities firm. Eight years later, Lozman came up with an idea for a new type of software for traders, and hired another defendant, Townsend Analytics Inc., to program it. To market the software, Lozman and Putnam formed Blue Water Partners, Inc., an Illinois corporation, in 1994. Each was a 50% shareholder and a director. The plan was to barter the software for a share of a brokerage firm’s commissions on trades. Townsend Analytics and its owners, Stuart and Marrgwen Townsend, were offered 15% equity in Blue Water but no director or officer positions.

Later that year, Putnam formed Terra Nova Trading, LLC, with himself as 100% shareholder, to route profits from Blue Water. Another company, Analytic Services, LLC, was formed to sell the software, with Samuel Long as president. In April of 1995, Putnam and Lozman signed an agreement to share commissions generated through or paid by Townsend and its software. For a variety of personal and professional reasons, the relationship between Lozman and Putnam went sour, and they voluntarily dissolved the agreement six months later. A later termination agreement, back-dated to the day of the dissolution, preserved any legal claims. Putnam went on to form three more companies that used the same office and brokerage license as Blue Water, subcontracted with the Townsends and/or competed with Blue Water.

Without Written Confidentiality Agreement, Competing Does Not Breach Fiduciary Duty, Court Rules

July 11, 2008 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

A former shareholder, officer and director did not breach his fiduciary duty to a corporation when he started a competing company, and a former employee did not breach his duty of loyalty by joining, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled. Cooper Linse Hallman v. Hallman, No. 1-05-0597 (2006).

Plaintiff Cooper Linse Capital Management, a closely held financial services company, brought on Thomas Hallman in 1994 as a shareholder with 20% of stock shares. The remainder were divided evenly between Lori Cooper and Don Linse. Hallman served as vice president and CFO as well as an employee. Two years later, the company hired James McQuinn as an employee only. Neither man signed a written confidentiality agreement, and both disputed Cooper Linse’s contention that they entered into an oral confidentiality agreement. All parties agreed that Linse and Cooper made all of the business decisions.

In 2000, the company that held Cooper Linse’s clients’ accounts in trust got into financial trouble and had its assets frozen, leaving clients unable to access their accounts and Cooper Linse unable to pay its employees. Linse began negotiations to take over that company’s trust business; McQuinn and Hallman quietly began planning to start a business competing with Cooper Linse.

Our Chicago Consumer Attorneys Can Assist in Recovering Money Damages for Consumer Frauds– Federal Reserve Website Assists in Reporting Consumer Fraud to the Right Agency

May 31, 2008 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

Are you a consumer with questions or concerns related to potential fraud and do not know what government agency to contact? The Chicago Federal Reserve Bank provides a web page that allows you to link to government agencies that may help you. The web page has links to federal and state banking agencies, federal and state securities agencies, and state insurance agencies located in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin. You can also link to various useful financial , insurance, and banking tools, and to lists of financial services regulators, and consumer complaint filing information. Click here to link to the Chicago Federal Reserve Fraud web page.

If you need legal assistance in pursuing a civil lawsuit because government regulators cannot help you in recovering money lost due to fraud, our private sector lawyers can assist you by clicking here to contact us.

Mutual Fund Owners May Not Sue Over Excessive Fees, Seventh Circuit Rules

May 28, 2008 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

In a mutual fund’s shareholder dispute, the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on May 19 that an investment advisor’s fiduciary duty to shareholders does not require that the advisor’s fees be “reasonable” by any legal definition. In Jones v. Harris Associates L.P., 07-1624 (7th Cir. 2008), the circuit affirmed a summary-judgment ruling in favor of the mutual fund manager by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Three shareholders in the Oakmark complex of mutual funds sued the fund’s advisor, Harris Associates, contending that the fees they paid toward Harris’s compensation were too high. The bulk of the opinion (which the majority called “the main event”) concerned section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act, an amendment to the 1940 act added in 1970. That law gives investment advisors at registered investment companies a fiduciary duty to shareholders with regard to any compensation they or their affiliates receive. However, said the Seventh Circuit, “a fiduciary duty differs from rate regulation…. Section 36(b) does not say that fees must be ‘reasonable’ in relation to a judicially created standard. It says instead that the adviser has a fiduciary duty.” The court goes on to note that fiduciary duty is well-defined in trust law and does not foreclose an advisor’s ability to negotiate for compensation.

In doing so, the court disapproved caselaw from Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc., 694 F.2d 923 (2d Cir. 1982). That case requires that “[t]o be guilty of a violation of §36(b) . . . the adviser-manager must charge a fee that is so disproportionately large that it bears no reasonable relationship to the services rendered and could not have been the product of arm’s-length bargaining.”

Bond Filing Absolutely Must Precede Attachment Order Under Illinois Attachment Act, Appeals Court Rules

May 24, 2008 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

In a business fraud lawsuit pitting a bank against its security vendor, the Illinois Appellate Court for the 1st District ruled May 1 that an attachment order must be voided under the Illinois Attachment Act if plaintiffs fail to file an attachment bond beforehand. In ABN Amro Services Company, Inc. v. Navarrete Industries, Inc., No. 1-07-0089 (Ill. App. 2008), the appeals court voided such an order and remanded it to the trial court.

The case arose from alleged fraud by INS, which provided security for multiple Chicago-area La Salle Bank branches. A fraud investigator discovered that Armando Navarrete of INS was fraudulently overbilling the banks by an alleged $15.9 million, then paying kickbacks to the banks’ vice president for security, George Konjuch. The bank filed a lawsuit in September of 2006 against INS, Konjuch, Navarrete and another INS employee, alleging fraud, civil conspiracy and constructive trust, plus breach of fiduciary duty against Konjuch. (Konjuch and Navarrete have since been indicted by a federal grand jury for the scheme.)

At the same time, plaintiffs asked for a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction and an order of statutory prejudgment attachment, all of which were attempts to keep the alleged conspirators from absconding with the money. Upon receiving notice of these filings, defendants immediately filed motions to void the restraining order and the prejudgment attachment. After hearings, the trial court dissolved the restraining order and denied the preliminary injunction, but declined to vacate the attachment order. Both sides appealed.