|

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.

Continue reading ›

|

Large corporations are often built upon the labor of many hard-working hourly employees. Unfortunately, such companies do not always pay their employees the wages that they have earned, and when such mistakes are made, those employees must do what they can to get what they are owed. When enough employees have been denied their earned wages, a class-action lawsuit may be the most efficient means to get everyone their unpaid wages, and our Naperville overtime class-action attorneys recently discovered another such lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois federal court.

In Hundt v. DirectSat USA, Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant as warehouse managers who regularly worked more than forty hours per week, but were not paid any overtime because Defendant classified them as exempt employees. Plaintiffs believed that they were misclassified because their job duties did not meet the overtime exemption requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Illinois Minimum Wage Act (IMWA), and filed a class action lawsuit for the unpaid overtime. After sending out opt-in notices to the potential class members, Plaintiffs discovered that the class should not be limited to just those employees with the title of warehouse manager. Plaintiffs therefore amended the complaint to broaden the class to include warehouse supervisors and other workers in similar positions, and filed a motion to send notice to these additional putative class members.

Defendants opposed the motion, stating that there were significant differences between warehouse managers and supervisors and claimed that Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege the existence of a common decision, policy, or plan to deprive them of overtime wages. The Court disagreed with Defendants, holding that all of the putative plaintiffs were similarly situated despite their varied job titles. In making its decision, the Court cited several internal communication emails that indicated the titles were interchangeable, and that was enough to meet the minimal burden required. Thus, the Court granted the motion to send notice to the additional class members.

Continue reading ›

|

Lubin Austermuehle has clients that operate a variety of businesses all across the state of Illinois. While there are common laws and legal principles that apply to all companies and corporations, there are other Illinois statutes that apply to specific types of businesses. Our Elgin business attorneys came across Clark Investments, Inc. v. Airstream , Inc., which is an Appellate Court of Illinois case involving laws that govern motor vehicle dealerships.

Clark Investments, Inc. v. Airstream , Inc. is a dispute between a Recreational Vehicle (RV) manufacturer and an RV dealer over a contractual agreement between the two companies. Initially, the Plaintiff car dealer contracted with Defendant manufacturer to have exclusive rights to sell Defendant’s RV’s in the state of Illinois. The initial contract was for a period of approximately two years, and shortly before the end of that contract Defendant proposed to renew the agreement with different terms. Defendant’s new contract contained no expiration date and gave Plaintiff no exclusive sales territory. Plaintiff rejected this contract and proposed the same exclusivity terms as the first contract, but Defendant rejected Plaintiff’s proposed changes. Shortly after these negotiations, the initial contract expired, but Defendant continued to supply Plaintiff with merchandise and service and Plaintiff continued to operate its business for almost nine months. The parties then entered into a new contract that contained no exclusive sales region for Plaintiff but allowed Plaintiff to sell more types of Defendant’s RV’s. After this new contract was signed, Defendant entered into an agreement with another RV dealership located ninety miles from Plaintiff’s business. This agreement authorized that dealership to sell some, but not all of the same products contained in Plaintiff’s agreement with Defendant.

Upon learning of this new agreement, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant alleging violations of the Franchise Act and the Franchise Disclosure Act. Defendant then filed a motion for summary judgment on both causes of action, and the trial court granted the motion as to both claims. Plaintiff appealed the court’s ruling as to the Franchise Act claim only, alleging that Defendant’s had violated section 4(e)(8) of the Act by granting an additional franchise within Plaintiff’s relevant market area and refusing to extend the first contract that granted Plaintiff all of Illinois as its exclusive sales territory. The Appellate Court rejected this argument by citing language from the Act that defines the relevant market area as the fifteen mile radius around Plaintiff’s principle location. Because the other franchise was located further than fifteen miles away, there was no violation of the Act.

Plaintiff also argued that Defendant violated section 4(d)(6) of the Act by refusing to extend the first contract that granted Plaintiff an exclusive sales territory of the whole state. The pertinent part of the Act makes it unlawful for a manufacturer
“1) to cancel or terminate the franchise or selling agreement of a motor vehicle dealer,
2) to fail or refuse to extend the franchise or selling agreement of a motor vehicle dealer upon its expiration, or
3) to offer a renewal, replacement or succeeding franchise or selling agreement containing terms and provisions the effect of which is to substantially change or modify the sales and service obligations or capital requirements of the motor vehicle dealer.”

The Court disagreed with Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant’s actions fell within the first category of conduct. The Court explained that Defendant’s conduct fell under the third category because Defendant offered Plaintiff a new contract with different terms before the initial contract expired. They held that the changes in the new contract did not substantially change the sales and service obligations or capital requirements of the Plaintiff, and upheld the lower court’s ruling.

Continue reading ›

|

As a firm of Chicago and Orland Park business attorneys, Lubin Austermuehle handles litigation for companies in a wide range of industries. Our Schaumburg business lawyers recently came across a case from St. Clair county that is of interest to LLC’s and those businesses who include arbitration clauses in their business agreements.

The Plaintiff in Trover v. 419 OCR, Inc. was a member of a limited liability company, Fair Oaks Development Group LLC (FODG) that planned to develop the land owned by FODG. Plaintiff was advised by counsel that the company would benefit from a tax perspective should the company transfer its interest in the land to Defendant 419 OCR, Inc. and allow that company to develop the land. Relying upon that alleged tax advice and the representations of Defendant, Plaintiff allegedly allowed FODG to sell and assign its interest in the land to Defendant 419 OCR, Inc., who later transferred parts of the land to Defendant O’Fallon Group. The sale was executed by a written agreement, but Plaintiff alleged that there was an additional oral agreement between the parties that was never put in writing. Under this oral agreement, Defendants were allegedly to pay Plaintiff a to-be-determined sum of money in addition to the price of the land. Defendants eventually developed the land and made a profit, but allegedly never paid any of the sums from the oral agreement.

Plaintiff then filed a shareholder derivative action on behalf of FODG alleging breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and corporate waste. Defendants filed a motion to compel binding arbitration based upon the arbitration provisions contained within the operating agreement governing FODG. The trial court denied the Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, and in response, Defendants filed for an interlocutory appeal on the arbitration issue.

The Appellate Court performed a de novo review of the motion to compel arbitration because the trial court did not hold an evidentiary hearing or make any factual findings. The Court examined the operating agreements that contained the arbitration provisions and found that, while the land transaction in question fell within the scope of the provisions, Defendants 419 OCR and the O’Fallon Group were not parties to those agreements and therefore were not bound by them. Thus, the Court upheld the trial court’s denial of arbitration for the breach of contract claims as to those two Defendants.

Next, the Court examined whether the claims for breach of fiduciary duty brought on behalf of FODG were bound by the arbitration clauses. The Court found that FODG was not a party to its own operating agreement because no signatories on the agreements indicated that they were signing on behalf of the LLC. As such, the claims brought on behalf of FODG were not bound by the arbitration clause and the Court denied the motion as to the breach of fiduciary duty claims. The Court then reversed the trial court’s denial as to the fraud cause of action because the individual Defendants and Plaintiff both signed the operating agreement and were bound by the arbitration provision contained therein.

Trover v. 419 OCR, Inc. contains important information for limited liability companies and the members of those organizations. The holding in this case indicates that an arbitration clause in the operating agreement of an LLC can only be enforced against those who were party, or are successor in interest to a party to the agreement. Additionally, it is important to note that an LLC itself is not a party to its own operating agreement without express language indicating that it is.

Continue reading ›

|

Many of us have had work done to our homes at some point, and sometimes difficulties arise during the course of such projects. Lubin Austermuehle is familiar with the legal issues that arise in such cases, and our lawyers are always concerned about protecting the rights of consumers. Universal Structures LTD v. Buchman is a case about a home improvement construction deal gone bad.

In Universal Structures LTD v. Buchman, Defendants contracted with Plaintiff to perform a series of demolition and remodeling projects at their home in Northfield, Illinois. The work was eventually completed and Defendants paid most of the amount billed by Plaintiff, but the payment left an outstanding balance of over $100,000. Plaintiff then recorded a mechanic’s lien for the unpaid amount and eventually filed a lawsuit to foreclose on the lien. Defendants successfully moved to dismiss the lawsuit because Plaintiff failed to present them with a written contract or work order to be signed and also did not present Defendants with a consumer rights brochure. The trial court dismissed Plaintiff’s suit because each of those failures constituted a violation of the Home Repair and Remodeling Act.

On appeal, the Court reviewed whether Plaintiff was “precluded from asserting a mechanic’s lien upon defendant’s property . . . when there was no signed contract or work orders and no delivery by plaintiff of the consumer rights brochure” as required by the Act. The Court found that Plaintiff had entered into a valid oral contract with Defendants and had tendered written, itemized work orders for approval before performing any work, which created a right to a mechanic’s lien. Furthermore, there is no language in the Act that that invalidates an oral agreement in the absence of a signed contract or failure to provide the consumer rights brochure. The Court pointed out that a contract is unenforceable under that Act only when the subject matter or purpose of the contract violated the law. As such, the Court reversed the lower court’s ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Continue reading ›

|

Most businesses require loans to normalize their income stream and ensure that they have the cash necessary to operate. Some business owners enter into guaranty contracts to get the capital that they need, and in the process become personally liable for the debt of their company. In such instances, disputes often arise when the other party attempts to enforce the guaranty contract to collect on the debt. Lubin Austermuehle has been involved with contract disputes of all kinds, and our Elgin guaranty contract attorneys recently uncovered a case that illustrates why it is important to draft such contracts carefully and enforce them in a timely manner.

In Riley Acquisitions Inc. v. Drexler, Defendant and her husband initially entered into a guaranty contract and promissory note with a third party to get credit for the two companies owned by the couple. Eventually, the marriage dissolved, and each spouse took control of one of the companies. Defendant’s company dissolved shortly thereafter, and Defendant then sent a letter to the third party revoking her personal guaranty. Her ex-husband eventually filed for bankruptcy – discharging his liability under the guaranty in the process, and leaving Defendant as the only guarantor on the loan. The third-party who owned the debt eventually sold and assigned its interest to Plaintiff, who filed suit to collect on the loan. Defendant asserted affirmative defenses that her obligation under the note terminated after her company (the principal on the note) dissolved and that Plaintiff’s claims were barred under the applicable ten-year statute of limitations. Defendant won a directed verdict on the basis of her discharge and statute of limitations defenses, and Plaintiff appealed.

The Appellate Court found that because Defendant’s company dissolved, its obligation on the note terminated five years later under the applicable portion of the Illinois Business Corporation Act of 1983. This effectively terminated Defendant’s liability as well because the guaranty contract did not expressly provide that liability would continue in such a situation. Thus, because Plaintiff filed suit nine years after the dissolution of Defendant’s company, the Court upheld the trial court’s verdict on discharge grounds and did not address the statute of limitations issue.

Continue reading ›

|

Crain’s Chicago Business published an insightful investigative report on the problem of wage theft in the Chicago area.

The article states:

The effects of wage theft bleed out further, robbing the local economy of consumer spending, says Mr. Theodore, the author of the UIC study. Low-income families are more likely to spend their paychecks quickly on goods and services. When they don’t receive their wages, retailers and other merchants lose out. Lost sales also mean lost sales tax revenues for state and local governments. Those same governments are called on to fill the gap when underpaid workers can’t make ends meet. A UIC study released in August found that a quarter of warehouse workers employed in Will County relied on government assistance to cover basic needs. The report concludes that paying low wages to temporary workers—if they’re paid at all—”effectively shifts the burden of supporting families to the public.”
This holiday season, like every year, religious organizations across the country will distribute turkeys and other food to needy families, says Kim Bobo, executive director of Interfaith Worker Justice, a national workers rights group based in Chicago. But if those workers received all their pay, many could buy their own turkeys. People argue that in a time of economic crisis, workers should just be grateful to have a job and that society should do nothing that might burden employers during a recession, Ms. Bobo says. But it’s exactly because times are hard that workers need all the wages they are owed.

You can read the full article by clicking here.

Continue reading ›

|

Members of the board of directors of a corporation have the responsibility to orchestrate the business in such a way that is advantageous to the shareholders and the continued growth and prosperity of the company. However, there are times when those directors may act in a way that serves their own interests, and the only way to protect the business is for shareholders to file a derivative suit on behalf of the company. Lubin Austermuehle is always researching new developments in this field of law, and our Chicago shareholder derivative action attorneys recently came across one such case filed here in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern District federal court.

Reiniche v. Martin is a double derivative suit brought by individual plaintiffs who are shareholders of a corporation, Health Alliance Holdings (HAH), that itself is a primary shareholder of HA Holdings (Holdings), another corporation. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants sought to freeze them and other HAH shareholders out through a series of illegal and wasteful acts that resulted in an insider transaction to sell Holdings for $10 and debt relief to another company in which Defendants had an interest. That transaction was approved by Holdings’ board of directors in spite of the fact that there was no quorum present to do so, and HAH was denied its right to sit on the board. In doing so, Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant directors and other shareholders of Holdings breached their fiduciary duties to the company. Defendants then moved to dismiss the suit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), claiming that Plaintiffs lacked standing, their claim was untimely, and the claims are insufficient under the law and barred by the business judgment rule.

The Court held that Plaintiffs did not have double derivative standing because such standing is only granted in the context of a parent/subsidiary relationship, and HAH was only a shareholder in Holdings – it was not a parent or holding company of Holdings. The Court went on to say that because the individual Defendant shareholders were each minority owners, none of them had a controlling interest in Holdings, and therefore did not owe a fiduciary duty to the Plaintiffs. As such, the Court found no policy reason for invoking a double derivative action and granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss.

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