Chicago Business Litigation Lawyer BlogArticles Posted in Litigation/Business Trials/Business Lawsuits/Business Litigation
Wall Street Journal Reports: “Judge Rules Against Lightstone And Enforces Bad Boy Clause in Real-Estate Loan Penalizing Borrower For Declaring Bankruptcy”
Many real-estate loans for large transactions include a so called “bad boy” clause which penalizes borrowers for declaring bankruptcy. Many borrowers didn’t take these clauses seriously in the past believing that they could declare bankruptcy and argue that the clauses were uneforcable as violating public policy encourcaging business business reorganizations as permitted by federal bankruptcy laws.
The Wall Street Journal however reports that a federal court following a trial has enforced a “bad boy” clause and penalized Lightstone Holdings LLC $100 million for putting the Extended Stay LLC hotel chain into bankrupcy. The article states:
A New York state judge has ruled that investor David Lichtenstein’s Lightstone Holdings LLC owes lenders $100 million because he violated a clause in his loan documents prohibiting him from seeking bankruptcy protection for the Extended Stay Inc. hotel chain.
The ruling Thursday by New York Supreme Court Judge Melvin L. Schweitzer stands to focus more attention on so-called bad-boy clauses in real-estate loans. Those clauses require the borrower to pay lenders a set penalty for putting the property pledged as collateral on a loan into bankruptcy or otherwise wasting its value. …
The ruling marks a victory for lenders, including Bank of America Corp., Wells Fargo & Co.’s Wachovia Corp. and the Federal Reserve’s Maiden Lane fund as successor to Bear, Stearns & Co. Those lenders collectively provided Lightstone roughly $2 billion of mezzanine loans, but their claims were wiped out after Extended Stay filed for bankruptcy protection in 2009. …
Mr. Lichtenstein had agreed to the “bad boy” clause while arranging for nearly $8 billion of financing for his 2007 purchase of the 660-hotel chain from Blackstone Group LP. The deal was one of the last big, debt-financed real-estate buyouts before the lending markets, and subsequently the global economy, went into one of its worst downturns …
Throughout the bankruptcy, Lightstone’s attorneys argued that the bad-boy clause wasn’t enforceable.
The full article provides additional insights. You can read the full article by clicking here.
Appellate Court Overturns Dismissal of Chicago Paramedics Unpaid Overtime Class-Action
Every day there are hard working people who are denied the overtime wages that they have rightfully earned. At Lubin Austermuehle, we have much experience representing those with unpaid overtime claims in class-action litigation. As such, we track the changes in the wage laws and are always looking out for new court decisions in the field.
Alvarez v. City of Chicago is a recent class-action case brought by paramedics in the city of Chicago for the systematic miscalculation of their overtime wages. In so doing, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) when it failed to properly compensate the Plaintiffs. The parties each filed motions for summary judgment, and the trial court ruled in favor of Defendant. In making the ruling, the trial court found that the Plaintiffs were not similarly situated and they could not be “readily divided into homogenous subgroups.” The lower court then dismissed the claims and directed the parties to arbitrate the dispute.
On appeal, the Appellate Court disagreed with the trial court’s decision, and held that the case could proceed by using sub-claims if the Plaintiffs were similarly situated and common questions predominated. The Court also held that the case should not have been dismissed; instead the Plaintiffs should be allowed to proceed individually if class certification is inappropriate. The Court then remanded the case with instructions for the district court to consider which form of judicial resolution would be most efficient.
Appellate Court of Illinois Upholds Circuit Court’s Rescission of Oral Agreement to Jointly Purchase a Gas Station due to Fraudulent Misrepresentation
When starting a new business venture, choosing the right partners is one of the most important decisions any company owner will make. Unfortunately, not all partnerships work out, and in some instances that is due to the dishonest machinations of fellow owners. Our Elgin business attorneys recently discovered one such case where one business partner was allegedly defrauded by two other owners in a transaction to jointly purchase and operate a gas station in Tinley Park.
Hassan v. Yusuf pits Plaintiff, a man who thought he was investing in the purchase of a gas station, against his two business partners who were also involved in the deal. Defendants solicited an investment of $120,000 from Plaintiff, equal to their own contributions, to purchase the gas station in question, but allegedly failed to inform Plaintiff that he was only purchasing one-third of the business, and had no claim to the real-estate upon which the station was built. After Plaintiff entered into an oral agreement to purchase the station with Defendants and run the day-to-day operations of the business, Defendants acquired title to the property and conveyed that title to a corporation solely owned by Defendants. The business was profitable at first, but eventually began operating at a loss. Defendants then demanded Plaintiff invest more money in the venture to cover these losses, but Plaintiff had no additional funds to invest, and requested an accounting of the business’s financial records and documentation showing his ownership and portion of the losses. Defendants failed to provide said documentation, and Plaintiff ceased working at the station and eventually filed suit.
The Circuit Court of Cook County found that Defendants had defrauded Plaintiff through their misrepresentations regarding the purchase of the business and accompanying real estate. In its judgment, the trial court granted Plaintiff rescission of the contract and damages for the total amount of money he invested in the business. After the trial verdict, Defendants appealed the finding of fraud on the basis that there was not clear and convincing evidence of a misrepresentation that Plaintiff would be an owner of the real estate under their agreement.
The Appellate Court upheld the Circuit Court’s decision, finding the record sufficient to support a finding that Defendants misrepresented to the Plaintiff that he was purchasing a one-third interest in the station and accompanying real estate, even though they had no intention of actually doing so. Furthermore, there was clear evidence of a fiduciary relationship between the parties, which gave rise to a claim for fraud by omission when Defendants failed to make explicit to Plaintiff that he was not acquiring an interest in the land. The Court went on to state Plaintiff’s reliance upon Defendants’ misrepresentations were justifiable, and upheld the trial court’s decision to rescind the contract, but reduced the damages award in an amount equal to Plaintiff’s share of the profits from the station. The Court did so because giving Plaintiff his share of the profits would be inconsistent with the remedy of rescission, which is supposed to place a party in the same position they would be in had the contract never occurred.
CNN reports: “Florida Judge Allows Suits Against Chiquita to Move Forward”
CNN reports that a federal court has allowed a law suit to proceed against Chiquita for allegedly contributing to human rights abuses in Colombia by paying bribes to the right wing paramilitary groups that actually committed the atrocities. Chiquita which once operated 200 banana plantations in Columbia claimed that it was a victim of extortion and was forced to pay the bribes which it also paid to left wing rebels. Chiquita already plead guilty to federal criminal charges involving the same bribes and paid a $25 million fine.
The article states:
A federal judge in Florida said Friday that lawsuits against Chiquita Brands International, filed by family members of thousands of Colombians who were tortured or killed by paramilitaries, will be allowed to go forward.
Chiquita, which has admitted to making payments to paramilitaries, had asked for the suits to be dismissed, arguing it was a victim of extortion and has no responsibility for any crimes armed groups committed.
But U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra denied the company’s request, allowing plaintiffs to move forward with claims for damages against the company for torture, war crimes and crimes against humanity. He granted Chiquita’s motion to dismiss claims for damages related to terrorism.
“While the court allowed some claims to move forward, it is important to understand that at this stage of the proceedings, the court is required by law to treat plaintiffs’ outrageous and false allegations as if they were true. Plaintiffs now have the burden of proving these allegations,” Chiquita spokesman Ed Loyd said in a statement.
You can read the full article by clicking here.
Online Fraud Magazine is a Great Resource for Tips on How to Uncover Business Fraud — Lubin Austermuehle’s Chicago Business Law Lawyers Work With Certified Fraud Examiners to Help Businesses, Partners and Shareholders to Recover Monies Lost Through Frauds
The online magazine of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners is a great resouce for tips on uncovering the varying forms of business fraud. You can click here to view it.
A recent issue of the magazine had a very informative article about how certain types of documents are susceptible to employee forgies and other frauds . The article had this to say about fax invoices:
FACSIMILE DOCUMENTS
Lubin Austermuehle’s Oak Brook and Chicago Attorneys Peter Lubin Named 2010 Illinois Super Lawyer as Class-Action, Business Litigation and Consumer Rights Attorneys
Super Lawyers named Chicago and Oak Brook business trial attorney Peter Lubin a Super Lawyer in the Categories of Class Action, Business Litigation and Consumer Rights Litigation. Lubin Austermuehle’s Oak Brook and Chicago business law attorneys have over a quarter of century of experience in litigating complex class action, consumer rights and business and commercial litigation disputes. We handle emergency business law suits involving injunctions, and TROS, covenant not to compete and trade secret lawsuits and many different kinds of business disputes involving shareholders, partnerships, closely held businesses and employee breaches of fiduciary duty. We also assist businesses and business owners who are victims of fraud.