Articles Posted in Best Business And Class Action Lawyers Near Chicago

|

Recent Illinois law regarding the defense of officers and directors of corporations and LLCs encompasses several key factors:

1. Fiduciary Duties: Officers and directors of corporations and LLCs are fiduciaries, holding duties of good faith, loyalty, and honesty to the corporation. They are not permitted to enhance their personal interests at the expense of the corporation’s interests, and should not be in a position where their own individual interests might interfere with their duties to the corporation.

2. Business Judgment Rule: Under the business judgment rule, a presumption exists that corporate decisions made by an officer or director are made on an informed basis and with an honest belief that the action was in the corporation’s best interests. This presumption can be rebutted by allegations that a director acted fraudulently, illegally, or without sufficient information to make an independent business decision [3].

3. Contractual Obligations: Illinois law provides officers of a corporation with a qualified privilege against liability for tortious interference with a contract with the corporation. To overcome this privilege, the plaintiff must assert and plead that the corporate officers acted with malice and without justification.

4. Piercing the Corporate Veil: Generally, corporate officers and directors are not personally liable for the corporation’s actions, as corporations are considered distinct legal entities separate from their officers, shareholders, and directors. However, under certain circumstances, the corporate veil can be pierced to hold officers and directors personally responsible, such as when there is such unity of interest and ownership that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individual no longer exist, or adherence to the fiction of separate corporate existence would sanction fraud or promote injustice.

5. Specifics for LLCs: In the context of LLCs, allegations that officers and directors disguised equity contributions as loans, enabling the company to make interest payments to insiders during a time when the company was either insolvent or undercapitalized, could be sufficient to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty under Illinois law.

These principles form the foundation of a defense for corporate officers and directors in Illinois. Continue reading ›

|

In the ever-evolving world of technology and the internet, antitrust issues have become increasingly prevalent. One of the most notable cases in recent memory involves Google and its alleged anticompetitive practices in the app distribution market. The case brought against Google by Epic Games, the creator of the popular game Fortnite, has garnered significant attention and ended with an antitrust loss for the tech giant. In this blog post, we’ll delve into the details of the Epic Games case and discuss what this loss means for Google and other tech giants.

The Epic Games Case

Epic Games filed a lawsuit against Google in August 2020, alleging that the company engaged in anticompetitive behavior by monopolizing the distribution of Android apps through the Google Play Store. The crux of Epic Games’ argument was that Google’s restrictive policies and the 30% commission fee it charged to developers for in-app purchases were stifling competition and innovation in the app market.

In July 2021, a U.S. District Judge ruled in favor of Epic Games, finding that Google had indeed violated antitrust laws by maintaining its monopoly over the Android app distribution market. The judge’s decision was a significant blow to Google and has far-reaching implications for the tech industry as a whole.

Implications of the Antitrust Loss

  1. Increased Scrutiny on Tech Giants: Google’s antitrust loss in the Epic Games case is part of a broader trend of increased scrutiny and legal action against major tech companies. This case, along with similar cases involving Apple, Facebook, and Amazon, highlights growing concerns about the dominance and market power of these tech giants.
  2. Potential Changes in App Distribution: The ruling against Google could lead to changes in how app distribution platforms operate. It may encourage alternative app stores to emerge, offering developers and consumers more choice and potentially lower commission fees. This could foster greater competition in the app market.
  3. Impact on Google’s Business Model: Google’s revenue model heavily relies on advertising and its app ecosystem. The loss in the Epic Games case could force Google to reconsider its commission structure for app developers, potentially impacting its bottom line.
  4. Precedent for Future Cases: The ruling against Google sets a legal precedent that could be used in future antitrust cases against tech companies. It strengthens the argument that dominant players in the industry should not use their position to stifle competition unfairly.
  5. Calls for Regulatory Reform: The Epic Games case has reignited calls for regulatory reform in the tech industry. Policymakers and regulators may use this case as evidence that existing antitrust laws need to be updated to address the unique challenges posed by the digital economy.

Google’s antitrust loss in the Epic Games case serves as a reminder that even tech giants are not immune to legal challenges and regulatory scrutiny. This case highlights the ongoing debate surrounding the power and influence of major tech companies in today’s digital landscape. As the tech industry continues to evolve, it is likely that we will see more antitrust cases and regulatory actions aimed at promoting competition and innovation while preventing anticompetitive behavior. The outcome of these cases will shape the future of the tech industry and its impact on consumers and developers alike.

Continue reading ›

|

The Illinois Supreme Court plays a crucial role in shaping the legal landscape of the state. June 2021 saw the release of several significant decisions that have far-reaching implications for Illinois residents, businesses, and the legal community. In this blog post, we will explore some of the notable recent Illinois Supreme Court decisions.

1. People v. Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116: The court addressed the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and found a statute, which prohibits the possession and use of an operable firearm for self-defense outside the home, unconstitutional, thus reversing the defendant’s aggravated unlawful use of weapons conviction.

2. People v. Burns, 2015 IL 117387: This case also addressed a similar Second Amendment issue.

3. People v. Chairez, 2018 IL 121417: This decision pertained to a different statute, but the specific ruling is not mentioned.

4. Yakich v. Aulds, 2019 IL 123667: The court clarified that the circuit and appellate courts of the State of Illinois must apply binding precedent from the Illinois Supreme Court.

5. People ex rel. Daley v. Datacom Sys. Corp., 585 N.E.2d 51 (Ill. 1991): The court agreed that “only the Department (of Financial and Professional Regulation) had standing to pursue civil violations of the Collection Agency Act”.

6. Maksimovic v. Tsogalis, 177 Ill.2d 511: The court clarified that preemption by the Illinois Human Rights Act (“IHRA”) is limited to situations where the claim made is dependent on a legal duty imposed by the IHRA. If the claim exists independent of any legal duty of the IHRA, the claim is not preempted.

7. Hale v. Committee on Character and Fitness for State of Illinois: The court allowed to stand a decision by the state bar character and fitness committee’s rejection of a bar applicant’s application. The court affirmed that the proceedings were “judicial proceedings,” and that the decision was an “adjudication” in which the applicant was able to litigate his constitutional challenges.

8. Blumenthal v. Brewer, 2016: In this case, the court affirmed that the appellate court does not have the authority to overrule a decision by the Illinois Supreme Court and discussed the implications of such an attempt

Conclusion

The Illinois Supreme Court decisions issued in June 2021 reflect the court’s commitment to upholding constitutional rights, clarifying legal principles, and ensuring fairness in various areas of law, from criminal procedures to civil litigation and attorney discipline. These rulings have a lasting impact on the legal landscape in Illinois and serve as important precedents for future cases. It is essential for legal professionals, scholars, and anyone with an interest in the law to stay informed about these decisions and their implications.

Continue reading ›

|

You’ve probably already heard of Alex Jones, but if you haven’t, or you need a refresher, he’s the right-wing conspiracy theorist who has used his media company, InfoWars, to promote the idea that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was a giant hoax created and promoted by anti-gun activists. Among other things, Jones claimed the grieving families and survivors of the massacre were “crisis actors” who were paid to lie about the mass shooting.

Jones has built a huge following, and many of them believe his lies. Many of his listeners even reached the point of actively seeking out Sandy Hook survivors and the families of those slaughtered, threatening and harassing them for their alleged lies.

The families sued Alex Jones for defamation and were collectively awarded $1.1 billion in damages.

Soon after that ruling, Jones filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which would have allowed him to restructure his business and potentially avoid paying the money he owes those families.

A judge recently ruled that Jones could not use bankruptcy as a means to avoid paying the $1.1 billion payments. The families took this as a victory, but Jones says he isn’t done fighting.

Jones’s net worth was valued at $14 million, yet he claims he has no money. He says he is $1 million in debt, and that the millions of dollars generated by his media company go to pay the bills, making the $1.1 billion ruling hypothetical. He also says he will continue to appeal the decision.

Meanwhile, he is asking his listeners to make donations to help him pay his legal bills. But those bills and the huge ruling against him have not stopped him from spending close to six figures in one month, much of it on lavish meals and entertainment. Continue reading ›

|

Introduction

Shareholder derivative lawsuits are legal actions brought by individual shareholders on behalf of a corporation against its officers, directors, or other insiders. These lawsuits typically allege misconduct, mismanagement, or breaches of fiduciary duties by those in control of the corporation. Defending against a shareholder derivative lawsuit can be complex and challenging, but with the right strategies and considerations, it is possible to protect the interests of both the corporation and its shareholders. In this blog post, we’ll explore the key steps and considerations involved in defending against a shareholder derivative lawsuit.

1. Understand the Basics of Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits

Before diving into defense strategies, it’s crucial to have a clear understanding of what a shareholder derivative lawsuit entails. These lawsuits are filed on behalf of the corporation, not individual shareholders, and seek to hold company insiders accountable for alleged wrongdoing. Understanding the legal framework is the first step in formulating an effective defense.

2. Evaluate the Merits of the Lawsuit

The first line of defense in any shareholder derivative lawsuit is a thorough evaluation of the merits of the claims. Engage experienced legal counsel to assess the allegations and evidence. Determine whether the allegations have a factual basis and whether they meet the legal requirements for pursuing a derivative action. If the claims lack merit, you may have grounds to seek dismissal. Continue reading ›

|

In a world where consumer lawsuits and class actions seem to be on the rise, businesses are constantly seeking effective strategies to defend themselves against potential legal challenges. One strategy that often flies under the radar but can be a game-changer is product recalls. While recalls are typically viewed as an admission of fault, they can actually serve as a powerful defense strategy, potentially short-circuiting class action lawsuits before they gain traction. In this blog, we’ll explore how recalls can be a great defense strategy for businesses.

1. Swift Action and Responsibility

One of the primary reasons recalls can be an effective defense strategy is the swift action and responsibility they demonstrate. When a company identifies a potential safety issue with one of its products and voluntarily recalls it, they are taking proactive steps to protect their consumers. This responsible and proactive approach can help build goodwill with customers and regulators.

By recalling a product quickly, a company can show that they prioritize safety over profit, which can make it challenging for plaintiffs to argue that the company was negligent or intentionally harmed consumers. Instead of facing a drawn-out legal battle, the company can focus on rectifying the issue and rebuilding trust.

2. Mitigation of Damages

Recalls also allow companies to mitigate potential damages, which can be a significant factor in deterring class action lawsuits. When a company recalls a product, they can take it off the market, preventing further harm to consumers and limiting potential damages. This swift action can reduce the overall number of affected consumers and the associated financial impact.

In a class action lawsuit, plaintiffs often seek damages for medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other related costs. By recalling the product early, a company can argue that they took reasonable steps to prevent these damages from occurring or escalating. Continue reading ›

|

Corporate veil piercing is a legal concept that allows a court to hold individual shareholders or owners of a corporation personally liable for the corporation’s actions or debts. It is a complex legal doctrine that is typically associated with business law, but in the case of Oliver v. Isenberg, 2019 IL App (1st) 181551-U, it was invoked in the context of family law. In this blog post, we will explore the unique application of veil piercing in this case and its implications for corporate liability in family law matters.

Background of the Case

Oliver v. Isenberg was primarily a family law case involving child custody and visitation rights. However, a significant twist in this case involved the issue of veil piercing, which emerged when Mr. Oliver sought to hold Ms. Isenberg personally liable for certain corporate debts.

The Legal Issues

  1. Veil Piercing in Family Law: Veil piercing is a legal doctrine more commonly associated with business law. It allows a court to disregard the legal separation between a corporation and its owners when certain conditions are met. In Oliver v. Isenberg, the issue was whether this doctrine could be applied in a family law context.
  2. Corporate Debts and Personal Liability: Mr. Oliver argued that Ms. Isenberg had manipulated the family’s corporate assets and finances to avoid paying child support and alimony. He contended that her actions were tantamount to piercing the corporate veil, making her personally liable for the outstanding financial obligations.
  3. Complex Legal Terrain: Veil piercing cases are notoriously complex, requiring the court to consider various factors, including whether the corporation was used to commit fraud, evade legal obligations, or if it lacked a true separate identity from its owners. In the family law context, this complexity was compounded by the emotional and personal nature of the dispute.

Continue reading ›

|

As a business owner, partner, or shareholder, complex disputes may arise that require efficient legal resolution. Choosing the right court to file suit can be more complex than one might initially think, especially in cases involving breach of fiduciary duty claims. A recent case from the US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Bare v. Al. Ringling Brewing Co., Inc., 21-CV-642-JDP, 2022 WL 2315594 (W.D. Wis. June 28, 2022), demonstrates that complex issues of federal court jurisdiction may preclude bringing certain claims in federal court, even though that may be a more appealing jurisdiction than state court.

First, it is important to understand the choice you may face in deciding which venue to pursue a potential claim. In cases where there are multiple claims or causes of action, a plaintiff may have the option to file suit in federal court. Federal jurisdiction typically arises when the case involves a federal question, such as a claim arising under federal law, or when there is diversity jurisdiction – meaning that the parties are residents of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. However, when there are also state law claims that arise from the same set of facts, the plaintiff must consider whether to litigate these claims in state court or to consolidate them with the federal claims.

One advantage of bringing all claims, both federal and state, in federal court is the possibility of greater efficiency in the litigation process. This is because federal courts often have more resources and can handle cases more quickly than their state court counterparts. Additionally, federal court judges tend to have more experience dealing with complex legal issues, which may be particularly beneficial in cases that involve intricate federal questions. Consolidating claims in federal court also allows for the resolution of all claims in a single forum, which can save time and resources for all parties involved.

On the other hand, there are potential disadvantages to bringing state law claims in federal court. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, meaning that they can only hear certain types of cases. If a federal court decides it does not have jurisdiction over the state law claims, the plaintiff may have to litigate these claims in state court, essentially splitting the case into two separate lawsuits. This can be both time-consuming and costly. Furthermore, federal courts will apply state law to state law claims, and there is a risk that a federal court may misinterpret or misapply the relevant state law, leading to an unfavorable outcome for the plaintiff. Continue reading ›

|

In theory, when people talk about online advertising, they could be talking about advertising on a variety of platforms. In addition to Google, each social media platform has its own advertising options. Amazon and Bing also have advertising. But for most people, online advertising is synonymous with Google Ads. Google has the largest share of online advertising by far, accounting for almost 29% of the total digital advertising revenue generated in 2021.

The U.S. Department of Justice, along with eight states, is suing Google for allegedly abusing its monopoly on digital advertising. According to the lawsuit, Google systematically aimed to control large portions of the high-tech tools involved in digital advertising so they could control the market.

By filing the lawsuit, the Department of Justice is hoping to force Google to sell all of its ad technology products, including the software it uses to buy and sell ads, the marketplace it uses to complete the transactions, and the service it uses to display ads across the internet. The lawsuit is also seeking to force Google to stop engaging in allegedly anticompetitive practices. Continue reading ›

|

We’ve all heard stories of the plucky entrepreneur who started a game-changing business and managed to sell it for millions of dollars. It’s a great rags-to-riches story, and it proves the American Dream is real. But what if the business is fake?

Charlie Javice was one of those young entrepreneurs. The company she started was called Frank, and the idea was to simplify the financial aid process for college students. When JP Morgan bought the company from Javice in 2021, it was valued at $175 million, and Javice was made managing director for student solutions. Now JP Morgan is suing her for allegedly exaggerating the company’s value … by a lot.

College students are a goldmine for banks. Almost all college students need to take out a loan in order to pay for their higher education, loans they spend decades paying off while the banks collect interest.

A lot of college students are also taking out credit cards for the first time, and most of them have not been taught how to use credit cards to their advantage. Instead, they’re more likely to end up in debt to the credit card companies.

According to court documents, when JP Morgan bought Frank, Javice allegedly told the bank’s executives that the company had more than 4 million users. The idea was that, by buying Frank, JP Morgan would gain access to a database containing the names and contact details of all those users who would no doubt be in need of financial assistance and a bank to provide its services. 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.
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

Please direct all mail correspondence to our Oakbrook Terrace address.

Phone: 603-333-0333
Visit our site: chicagobusinesslawfirm.com

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

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 © 2024, Lubin Austermuehle, P.C.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design