Shareholder Disputes

What Illinois Laws Prevent a Partner from Cheating Another Partner?

May 23, 2024 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

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 ›

Why You Should Choose Lubin Austermuehle as Your Lawyers to Protect Your MInoirty Interests in a Closely Held Illinois Company From Breaches of Fiduciary Duty?

May 10, 2024 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

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. Lubin Austermuehle is a firm that you might consider for several reasons:

Concentration in Business Litigation: Firms like Lubin Austermuehle 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.
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.

What are the Grounds for Suing a Business Partner in Illinois?

May 9, 2024 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

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 ›

What are the Grounds for Filing a Derivative Lawsuit for an Illinois LLC or Corporation?

May 8, 2024 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

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 ›

What constitutes LLC member or shareholder oppression in Illinois?

May 2, 2024 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

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 ›

Why Minority Owners Should Hire Lubin Austermuehle for Shareholder or LLC Member Oppression Cases in Illinois

May 2, 2024 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

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. Lubin Austermuehle, 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

Lubin Austermuehle 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.

Understanding the Freeze Out or Squeeze Outs of Minority Owners in Illinois Closely Held Companies

March 12, 2024 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

In the business world of closely held companies in Illinois, minority shareholders often find themselves vulnerable to what is known as a “freeze out” or “squeeze out.” This blog post delves into this phenomenon, exploring what it means, how it happens, and the legal backdrop in Illinois that governs such situations.

What is a Freeze Out/Squeeze Out?

A freeze out or squeeze out occurs when majority shareholders in a closely held company engage in practices aimed at marginalizing, reducing, or eliminating the minority shareholders’ stake in the company. This can be done in various ways, such as refusing to declare dividends, terminating employment, or other tactics that essentially force minority shareholders to sell their shares at a reduced value.

Common Tactics Used

Withholding Dividends: Majority shareholders may decide not to declare dividends, thereby cutting off a key financial benefit of holding shares.
Employment Termination: Minority shareholders who are employed by the company might be terminated or demoted.
Denying Access to Information: Minority shareholders might be denied access to important company information, impacting their ability to make informed decisions.
Dilution of Shares: The company might issue more shares, diluting the minority’s ownership percentage.

Legal Framework in Illinois

In Illinois, the rights of minority shareholders in closely held corporations are protected under various statutes and case law. The Illinois Business Corporation Act provides certain protections and remedies for minority shareholders, including the right to a fair valuation of their shares.

Fiduciary Duties: Majority shareholders have fiduciary duties to the minority. Breach of these duties can form the basis for legal action.
Oppression Remedies: The law provides remedies for “oppressive” actions by majority shareholders. This can include actions that are burdensome, harsh, or wrongful.

In Illinois, there are several significant cases that provide guidance on the treatment of minority shareholder or LLC member freeze-outs or squeeze-outs.

In “Vanco v. Mancini”, the court acknowledged the vulnerability of minority shareholders to freeze-outs or squeeze-outs where the majority, for personal rather than legitimate business reasons, deprives the minority shareholder of their office, employment, and salary. The court highlighted the availability of judicial remedies, including the dissolution of the corporation, in such instances.

The case of “Rexford Rand Corp. v. Ancel” further expanded on this issue. The court suggested the necessity of a fiduciary duty on shareholders in a close corporation as a protective measure against oppressive conduct by the majority. It also indicated that a minority shareholder who has been frozen out should rely on an oppressed shareholder lawsuit against the corporation seeking damages or dissolution. Interestingly, the court discussed whether a freeze-out terminates a shareholder’s fiduciary duty to a close corporation and concluded that a minority shareholder who has been frozen out no longer exercises influence over corporate affairs that gives rise to a fiduciary duty.

“Small v. Sussman” held that the injuries alleged by a minority shareholder were injuries to the corporation, thus only a shareholder derivative action was available. It also found that a freeze-out merger that, through a reverse stock split, eliminated a minority shareholder’s fractional share, did not support a constructive fraud claim. The court ruled that a minority shareholder cannot recover on a conversion claim against the majority shareholder and corporation in connection with a freeze-out merger that eliminated his fractional share.

Further to this, “Jaffe Commercial Finance Co. v. Harris” held that a majority, by merely voting its strength to effectively oust minority from participation in the business of a corporation, did not act oppressively within the meaning of the statute authorizing liquidation. Similarly, in “Jahn v. Kinderman”, it was held that frozen-out minority shareholders in closely held corporations may seek dissolution of the entity, and majority shareholders may avoid this result via a buyout of the minority at a “fair value” to be determined by the circuit court if the parties are unable to reach an agreement.

Lastly, “Bone v. Coyle Mechanical Supply, Inc.” found that majority shareholders’ conduct in failing to hold annual meetings, failing to observe corporate formalities in increasing bonuses and compensation, and effectively “freezing-out” minority shareholders could be considered as outrageous, due to evil motive or reckless indifference to the rights of others.

Please note that these cases provide a general outline of the law in Illinois on minority shareholder or LLC member freeze-outs or squeeze-outs, and the specific holdings may vary depending on the facts of each case.

Navigating Fair Compensation in Closely Held Companies: The Legal Implications of Excessive Salaries

February 25, 2024 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

In closely held companies, particularly LLCs and corporations with a limited number of shareholders, the issue of compensation for owners and shareholders can be a legal minefield. A significant concern arises when majority owners, often also serving as executives, award themselves excessively high salaries or compensation. This practice, while appearing to be a clever business strategy, can veer into illegality, particularly if it’s done with the intent to minimize or avoid distributions to minority owners.

Understanding the Legal Framework

The legal principles governing such practices are rooted in the fiduciary duties that majority shareholders or LLC owners owe to minority stakeholders. These duties include the duty of loyalty, which mandates that decisions must be made in the best interests of the company and all shareholders, not just a select few.

When majority owners inflate their compensation unjustly, they may be breaching this duty. This is especially true if the inflated salaries negatively impact the company’s profitability or the ability to pay dividends or distributions to other shareholders.

Case Law and Legal Precedents

Various legal precedents highlight this issue. Courts have often scrutinized such practices under the lens of fairness and the fiduciary duties owed. For instance, in cases where the majority shareholders’ salaries are disproportionately high compared to the company’s overall financial health or industry standards, courts have found this to be a breach of fiduciary duty.

In cases such as Fleming v. Louvers International, Inc., courts have found that depriving a minority shareholder of his rightful pro rata distributions through excessive compensation can constitute a breach of fiduciary duty. Another case, Kovac v. Barron, identified a shareholder who committed constructive fraud by causing the corporation to pay him and his wife millions in excessive compensation, which was then concealed as “contract labor” on tax returns.

Certain regulations also provide guidance on this matter. For instance, compensation exceeding the costs that are deductible as compensation under the Internal Revenue Code are deemed unallowable for owners of closely held companies. The Small Business Administration (SBA) views the payment of excessive officers’ salaries as a type of withdrawal from a company, implying that the SBA may see such actions as an attempt to avoid excessive withdrawal limitations. Continue reading ›

In Illinois a Minority Member can Bring a Derivative Lawsuit as a LLC Member on Behalf of the LLC

February 23, 2024 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

In Illinois, the situation regarding LLC minority members bringing a derivative lawsuit for member oppression is quite specific. The Illinois Limited Liability Company Act allows LLC members to file a derivative action to protect the interests of the LLC. This is particularly relevant when the LLC itself has a cause of action, but the managers or members have failed to pursue it. Such a derivative action enables members to enforce the rights of the LLC and recover damages on its behalf.

However, it’s important to understand that a derivative action is distinct from a member oppression claim. While derivative actions are filed on behalf of the LLC for wrongs against the LLC, certain types of member oppression claims are brought by individual members against the controlling members for actions that unfairly prejudice the minority members’ rights or interests and case-specific injury to the minority member but not the LLC as a whole.

For a derivative action to be initiated, certain conditions must be met. The member initiating the action should not be a manager of the LLC, and they must have made a written demand on the managers or members of the LLC to take action to enforce the right. If the managers or members fail to take action within 90 days, the member can then file a lawsuit on behalf of the LLC. It is crucial to note that derivative actions are complex and can be costly, so seeking advice from an experienced business attorney is recommended.

For member oppression, minority LLC members in Illinois have legal options to protect their interests and seek remedies, such as judicial dissolution, breach of fiduciary duty claims, specific performance or injunctive relief, and buyout or monetary damages. Again, legal counsel is crucial in navigating these options and understanding the rights and legal remedies available under the Illinois Limited Liability Company Act.

How Should a Minority Shareholder or LLC Member Handle a Squeeze-Out or Freeze-Out of Their Interests

February 23, 2024 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

When a shareholder or LLC (Limited Liability Company) member faces a “freeze-out” or “squeeze-out,” they are typically being pushed out of the company’s decision-making process or their economic interests are being diminished. This can be a challenging and complex situation, requiring a careful and strategic approach. Here are some general steps that might be considered:

Understand Your Legal Rights and Documents: Review the company’s governing documents, such as the bylaws, shareholder agreement, or operating agreement. These documents often outline the rights and obligations of shareholders or members and may contain provisions relevant to your situation.
Gather Evidence: Document any actions that contribute to the freeze-out or squeeze-out. This could include meeting minutes, emails, financial statements, or any other relevant communications.
Seek Legal Advice: Consult with an attorney who specializes in corporate law, particularly someone experienced in shareholder/member rights in LLCs or corporations. They can provide advice specific to your situation, including the interpretation of any legal documents and the identification of any breaches of fiduciary duties or violations of state laws.
Explore Negotiation and Mediation: Before taking any legal action, consider whether the situation can be resolved through negotiation or mediation. These alternative dispute resolution methods can often be less costly and time-consuming than litigation.
Consider Your Goals: Identify what you want to achieve. Do you want to regain your position in the company, receive compensation for your lost interests, or simply exit the company in a fair manner? Your goals will guide your strategy moving forward.
Possible Litigation: If negotiations fail and your legal rights are being significantly infringed upon, litigation may be necessary. Your attorney can advise on the likelihood of success and the costs involved.
Financial Implications: Consider the financial impact of your chosen course of action, including legal fees, potential loss of income, and any tax implications.
Communication with Other Shareholders/Members: If other shareholders or members are also being affected, it might be beneficial to communicate with them. There could be strength in numbers, either in negotiations or in legal action.
Understand the Impact on Relationships: Consider the long-term business relationships and how they will be affected by your actions. Sometimes the best legal strategy might not align with your long-term business or personal relationships.
Plan for the Future: Regardless of the outcome, think about your future with or without the company. This might involve considering other business opportunities or roles.

Every situation is unique, and the best course of action will depend on the specific circumstances, the governing laws of the state where the LLC or corporation is registered, and the details of the company’s governing documents. It’s crucial to balance legal considerations with practical business and personal considerations.