Chicago Business Litigation Lawyer Blog

NPR Reports: “$1 Billion BOA Lawsuit Claims Mortgage Fraud”

October 31, 2012 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

The Chicago trial attorneys at our firm have experience in complex business and fraud litigation. We work with some of the top whistle blower and qui tam lawyers in the country. The business fraud law firm of Lubin Austermuehle represents whistleblowers who are pursing qui tam lawsuits at any level of government, including claims under the Illinois Whistleblower Act, the Chicago whistleblower ordinance and the federal False Claims Act. Based in Chicago and Oak Brook, Ill., our Illinois and Naperville, and Chicago qui tam and False Claims Act lawyers stand ready to represent whistleblowers throughout the United States — regardless of whether prosecutors have decided to join the lawsuit. If you know about fraud against a government agency and you’re ready to speak up, you can learn more about whistleblower lawsuits at a free, confidential consultation. To set one up, please contact Lubin Austermuehle online or call 630-333-0333 today.

NPR Reports: “Wal-Mart’s Female Employees File Suit In Tennessee”

October 30, 2012 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

USA Today Reports:”NCAA seeks to block class action in O’Bannon case”

October 24, 2012 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

USA Today reports that the NCAA is seeking dismissal of the class action claims by former players including Oscar Robertson because the NCAA’s lawyers claims plaintiffs have changed their legal theories too many times. This potential class action claims that the NCAA has unfairly profited from the players images without paying them for these valuable rights. The article states:

Lawyers defending the NCAA in an anti-trust lawsuit related to the use of college athletes’ names and likenesses say the case should not be certified as a class action, in part, because the plaintiffs changed their legal strategy in a way that is unfair and could mean the NCAA has wasted “significant time and money” responding to the suit.

To read the full article click here.

2012 — Record Year For False Claims Act Recoveries

October 23, 2012 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

For the fiscal year which ended September 30, 2012 more than $9 billion in civil settlements and criminal fines was recovered by federal and state governments through False Claims Act cases. Moreover, twenty eight out of the thirty largest recoveries were from cases filed by whistleblowers. Not only does this represent a record amount, it more than doubles the previous record set in 2011 of $4 billion, and exceeds the total recoveries over the past three years.

This trend in recoveries is consistent with the increase in cases filed under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act over the last three years. In 2009, 433 qui tam cases were filed. In 2010, a record 573 cases were filed, and in 2011, an unprecedented 638 cases were filed by whistleblowers.

Legislative changes designed to encourage suits under the FCA account, at least in part, for the increase in the number of cases filed. In 2009, the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act (FERA) was passed, which made several favorable changes to FCA provisions. In 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) contained provisions which made it easier for whistleblowers to pursue health care fraud cases. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 strengthened protections for whistleblowers. The increase in recoveries is probably also due to increased enforcement efforts by government entities, including the Justice Department, the SEC, and the IRS.

It is likely that the trend in recoveries will continue. There are already $3.5 billion in settlements reportedly in the pipeline in the new fiscal year.

Service Agreements Require Timely Payment, Compliance with Contractual Terms to Be Enforceable by Consumers – M&B Graphics v. Toshiba Business Solutions

October 18, 2012 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

A company that leased photocopier machines to a printing company prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in a breach of contract claim brought by the business leasing the copy machines. In M&B Graphics, Inc. v. Toshiba Business Solutions (USA), Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ruled that the defendant was justified in terminating service agreements for its machines due to the plaintiff’s noncompliance with the terms of the agreements.

M&B Graphics (M&B), a Michigan printing company, began leasing three photocopiers from Toshiba Business Solutions on August 10, 2009. The lease had a term of sixty-three months, with monthly payments of $2,520. The parties also executed service agreements for each of the three copiers. Toshiba would perform routine repairs and maintenance on the copiers, and M&B would pay a flat monthly fee and a per-copy fee. Toshiba had the right to terminate the service agreements if M&B failed to make timely payment of the monthly service fees or failed to use the copiers in strict accordance with Toshiba’s specifications. Either party could terminate the agreements by giving written notice thirty (30) days prior to the anniversary date.

Business Planning — Non-Compete Agreements

October 15, 2012 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

Non-compete agreements are increasingly more common in today’s competitive business environment.

Non-compete agreements, confidentiality and other restrictive covenants are a great tool for protecting trade secrets, customer lists, and other sensitive information, but only if the agreement is enforceable in a court of law. The issue of enforceability of non-compete agreements is a complex legal question that is the subject of much business litigation. If you are party to a non-compete or confidentiality agreement – whether as an employee or employer – it is helpful to consult with a knowledgeable business litigation attorney like the Hinsdale business litigation attorneys at Lubin Austermuehle. We have represented employees and employers throughout DuPage, Cook, Kane and Lake Counties in non-compete litigation including representing large public corporations and high level executives in lawsuits arising from non-compete agreements. We also draft non-compete and confidentiality agreements for our corporate clients.

Exposing Madoff’s Ponzi Scheme — Our Chicago Fraud and Whistle Blower Lawyers Help Businesses Who Have Suffered From Fraud Recover Their Losses

October 11, 2012 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xYkQnCUl5E

To learn more about our qui tam, blower, fraud, partnership and business dispute practice click here. Lubin Austermuehle’s Chicago business trial lawyers have more than two and half decades of experience helping business clients on unraveling complex business fraud and breach of fiduciary duty cases. We work with skilled forensic accountants and certified fraud examiners to help recover monies missappropriated from our clients and from government. Our Chicago litigation lawyers represent individuals, family businesses and enterprises of all sizes in a variety of legal disputes, including disputes among partners and shareholders as well as lawsuits between businesses and and consumer rights, auto fraud, and wage claim individual and class action cases. In every case, our goal is to resolve disputes as quickly and sucessfully as possible, helping business clients protect their investements and get back to business as usual. From offices in Oak Brook, near Lake Forest, and Evanston, we serve clients throughout Illinois and the Midwest.

If you know about fraud on the government and are prepared to blow the whistle, and you’d like to discuss how the experienced Illinois qui tam and whistle blower attorneys at Lubin Austermuehle can help, we would like to hear from you. To set up a consultation with one of our Chicago qui tam and whistle blower lawyers, please call us toll-free at 630-333-0333 or contact us through the Internet.

Clawing Back Profits From A Ponzi Scheme — What is the Law?

October 5, 2012 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbW2cj_k_WE

To learn more about our qui tam and whistle blower practice click here. Lubin Austermuehle’s Chicago business trial lawyers have more than two and half decades of experience helping business clients on unraveling complex business fraud and breach of fiduciary duty cases. We work with skilled forensic accountants and certified fraud examiners to help recover monies missappropriated from our clients and from government. Our Chicago litigation lawyers represent individuals, family businesses and enterprises of all sizes in a variety of legal disputes, including disputes among partners and shareholders as well as lawsuits between businesses and and consumer rights, auto fraud, and wage claim individual and class action cases. In every case, our goal is to resolve disputes as quickly and sucessfully as possible, helping business clients protect their investements and get back to business as usual. From offices in Oak Brook, near Aurora, and Naperville, we serve clients throughout Illinois and the Midwest.

If you know about fraud on the government and are prepared to blow the whistle, and you’d like to discuss how the experienced Illinois qui tam and whistle blower attorneys at Lubin Austermuehle can help, we would like to hear from you. To set up a consultation with one of our Hinsdale and Wheaton qui tam and whistle blower lawyers, please call us toll-free at 630-333-0333 or contact us through the Internet.

When a Failure to Deny an Allegation Constitutes and Admission – Kule-Rubin v. Bahari Group

October 4, 2012 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

A defendant’s failure to deny allegations in a responsive pleading to a complaint can serve as an admission of those allegations. In Kule-Rubin, et al v. Bahari Group, Limited, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to four of the claims asserted in their complaint for wage violations. The plaintiffs argued in their motion that the defendant, in its answer to their original complaint, had not expressly denied certain allegations. The court deemed those allegations admitted by the defendants, and granted judgment on the plaintiffs’ claims that were supported by those admissions. The court also dismissed two counterclaims by the defendant.

The defendant is a manufacturer, distributor, and retailer of clothing. The individual owners of the company were also named as defendants. The eleven plaintiffs were employees who began working for defendant at different times beginning in 1994. According to the plaintiffs’ complaint, the defendant began withholding wages from certain plaintiffs in October 2010, and it withheld wages from all of its employees starting that November. The defendant allegedly withheld commission wages, expense reimbursements, and health insurance premiums from some plaintiffs beginning two years earlier. The defendant told the plaintiffs that if they continued to work for the defendant, it would pay them all back wages and current wages later. All eleven plaintiffs continued working for the defendant until November 30, 2010, when the defendant terminated them.

Supreme Court To Address Standards For Class Certification in Securities Fraud Actions and Whether Plaintiffs Need to Prove “Fraud On The Market” Claim to Certify a Class-Action

October 1, 2012 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

The Supreme Court in Amgen, Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds has recently agreed to decide on whether federal courts in certifying a securities class must decide in order to certify the class whether the fact of damages claims regarding a “fraud on the market” have merit or are true. Federal courts generally didn’t decide the merits of the case in class actions at the time of class certification. However, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision the Walmart class action corporate defendants and business interests have urged the Court to make Plaintiffs prove their case at the class certification stage.

An excellent article discussing the Supreme Court’s decision to hear Amgen and its ramifications can be reviewed by clicking here. The article explains the significance of the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case as follows:

For over 20 years, the “fraud on the market” theory, which the Supreme Court endorsed in Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), has been a key tool for plaintiffs in class action securities fraud litigation under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. The theory posits that the price of a security trading in an efficient market reflects all publicly available information about that security. Based on that premise, the theory gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that investors rely on material misrepresentations reflected in market prices at the time they transact. Without this presumption, plaintiffs purporting to assert class action securities fraud claims would have difficulty showing reliance on a class-wide basis, and hence satisfying the typicality and predominance prerequisites to class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3). Decisions as to class certification strongly influence the balance of leverage as between plaintiffs and defendants in class actions generally. Thus, the showing plaintiffs must make in order to invoke the “fraud on the market” theory is a critical issue in securities litigation.

The impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Amgen could go well beyond securities actions and make it more difficult to ever certify any type of class action.