|

While most businesses strive to maintain employee stability, the fact of the matter is that during the course of any company’s existence there will be a certain amount of turnover. In states like Illinois, many employers utilize employment contracts that contain non-compete clauses and other restrictive covenants to protect themselves when employees depart. In spite of these precautionary measures, disputes will often still occur, which is why our Aurora non-compete lawyers are always watching developments in this area of the law.

In Steam Sales Corp. v. Summers, Defendant Summers worked for Plaintiff soliciting and servicing customer accounts pursuant to a written employment agreement that contained both non-compete and liquidated damages clauses. The clauses were to be effective for two years after the cessation of Defendant’s employment with Plaintiff. Plaintiff had several exclusive relationships with manufacturers, which gave it access to information not available to its competitors that served as an advantage in the marketplace. Defendant had access to this information, and after working for Plaintiff for almost two years, he quit to form a competing company and subsequently obtained the business of two of Plaintiffs (now) former clients.

In response, Plaintiff filed suit for Defendant’s violation of the restrictive covenant contained in the employment agreement between the parties and demanded injunctive relief pursuant to the liquidated damages clause in the contract. The circuit court granted the preliminary injunction based upon the non-compete clause and enjoined Defendant from soliciting or selling any service or product similar or identical to Plaintiff’s. Defendant then filed an interlocutory appeal. The Appellate Court found that Plaintiff had not breached the parties’ contract and that the restrictive covenant was enforceable because it was reasonable in its geographic (Defendant’s sales territory when he worked for Plaintiff) and temporal scope and in its application.

Continue reading ›

|

 

To Get In, Push Buttons, or Maybe Swipe a Magnet
By JOHN SCHWARTZ
Published: March 26, 2011
A lawsuit argues that push-button locks are easily, and discreetly, foiled, accuse Kaba of deceptive trade practices, common-law fraud, negligence and product liability.

To read the full article click here.

You can link to a video showing how easily Kaba locks allegedly can be by-passed with a magent at this blog site by clicking here.

Continue reading ›

|

In a very informative short piece, the Wall Street Journal reports that Howard Stern has filed suit regarding Sirius/XM’s failure to pay Stern and his agent stock bonus payments that were part of Stern’s compensation package. Stern initially did not press for the payments for a few years but has now filed suit for non-payment. The main issue in the dispute is whether XM subscribers post merger can be included in the target subscriber base numbers which trigger stock bonus payment obligations. The article states:

Howard Stern, who seems to be in a perpetual fight with his bosses, is at it again.

The production company for the radio personality is suing Sirius XM, claiming the satellite radio company has refused to pay stock awards it owes to him based on subscriber targets in Stern’s contract. The lawsuit also says Sirius owes money to Stern’s agent under a consulting agreement.

“World-renowned radio personality Howard Stern (“Stern”) put Sirius on the map,” the lawsuit says. “But, with the exception of a stock award that Sirius paid for the initial year of Stem’s contract, Sirius has refused to pay One Twelve [the production company for Stern’s show] the additional performance-based stock awards to which One Twelve is entitled.”

You can read the full article by clicking here. You can read the Complaint in the lawsuit by clicking here.

Another interesting article on the dispute appeared in Forbes. That article provides some speculation on the behind the scenes motives driving the case and can be read by clicking here.

Continue reading ›

|

 

Bloomberg reports that AIG and three other insurance companies settled a class action lawsuit which originally arose out of charges brought by New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer regarding fake insurance quotes used to steer insurance buyers to certain carriers. The article states:

AIG, Liberty Mutual Holding Co., Travelers Cos., Inc. and XL Group Plc (XL) agreed to settle the case with buyers of insurance policies sold from 1998 through 2004. Five other insurers agreed to settle a related set of claims over non-excess casualty policies.

“We are pleased to have reached an agreement to resolve this matter,” said company spokesman Mark Herr in an e-mailed statement. “Through this settlement, AIG brings an end to another long-standing lawsuit about events from many years ago.”
Zurich Financial Services AG (ZURN), the largest Swiss insurer, and Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., an insurance broker, previously settled the case pending in federal court in Trenton, New Jersey. Zurich, based in the Swiss city of the same name, agreed to pay $121.8 million to clients and $30 million in attorneys’ fees. Gallagher, based in Itasca, Illinois, agreed to pay $28 million to clients and $8.9 million in attorneys’ fees.

To read the full article click here.

Continue reading ›

|

When large companies fail to properly compensate their employees, a class-action lawsuit is usually the most efficient means to resolve the legal claims between the two parties. At Lubin Austermuehle, our Chicago Fair Labor Standards Act lawyers fight for the rights of those who are due unpaid wages, and our lawyers are always striving to find ways to best serve our clients’ interests. As a firm that focuses on wage and hour class-actions, we are always watching for new court decisions in the area, and our Orland Park overtime lawyers recently found one such case in the federal Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division Court.

Slayton v. Iowa College Acquisition Corp. is a case brought by a plaintiff who worked for Defendant as an Admissions Advisor for Kaplan University, where she and other putative class members were paid an hourly wage and were frequently required to work more than forty hours a week, but were not paid overtime. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant required them to arrive at work prior to their shifts in order to perform certain job duties without compensation. Upon filing the putative class-action, the named plaintiff proposed two sub-classes — one for overtime violations of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL), and one for unpaid wage violations under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA) — and sought to certify them under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). Defendant did not dispute that the proposed class met the numerosity and adequate representation requirements of the rule, but did argue that Plaintiffs could not meet the commonality and typicality requirements.

In denying class certification, the Court found that Plaintiffs did not establish that Defendant engaged in standardized conduct to toward members of the proposed class. While there was evidence that Defendant required Plaintiffs to arrive early, it was unclear that Defendant had a widespread policy to not record that time. The Court also held that typicality was not established because not all the class representative’s claims had the same essential characteristics of the claims of the class at large and consequently, no common questions of law or fact predominated over the individual claims of the class members.

Continue reading ›

|

Unpaid overtime lawsuits continue to proliferate as businesses seek to cut costs by cutting corners. Home Media Magazine reports that the largest privately owned video rental chain in the country, Family Video based in Gleview Illinois has been hit with an unpaid overtime class-action suit. Family Video employs more that 6,500 workers according to the artice. The article reports that the suit alleges:

[F]ormer employee Darvette Smith was not fairly compensated for standard and overtime hours worked at three Family Video store locations in Des Moines, Iowa, from November 2008 to January 2011.

The suit claims .. Family Video with 730 stores in 19 states violated provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act in an effort to strictly manage its labor costs. Unpaid work included assisting customers, opening stores, maintenance, making required phone calls, completing inventory-related tasks, stocking shelves, and closing down stores, which required balancing cash registers and making off-site bank deposits.

You can read the full article by clicking here.

Continue reading ›

|

The issues faced by our clients, and particularly our business clients, are often complex both factually and legally. Our Palatine business lawyers recently discovered a case filed in Du Page county that illustrates how business legal issues can, and often do, dovetail with personal legal issues. Prignano v. Prignano demonstrates the importance of obtaining legal advice before making business agreements and contracts that include will and probate issues.

In Prignano v. Prignano, the widow of George Prignano, a man who owned several businesses with his brother Louis, sued that brother for allegedly failing to honor an agreement that the survivor of the two brothers would buy the decedent brother’s share of their co-owned businesses. The Prignano brothers jointly owned two corporations, Sunrise Homes and Rainbow Installations, and were equal partners in 710 Building Partnership. The Plaintiff widow alleged that the Defendant had an oral agreement with her deceased husband George whereupon Louis would purchase George’s share of their three businesses with the proceeds from life insurance policies purchased for that purpose. Plaintiff also alleged that she and Defendant had an oral agreement that Defendant would purchase his brother’s share of the businesses from Plaintiff.

After George’s death, Defendant, who was the executor of George’s estate, allegedly kept George’s share of the businesses and the life insurance payments for himself unbeknownst to Plaintiff. When Plaintiff discovered this, she filed suit against him for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The trial court ruled in her favor on all counts and awarded her damages and prejudgment interest. Defendant then appealed the trial court’s finding of liability and the award of prejudgment interest.

On appeal, the Second District of the Appellate Court of Illinois reaffirmed the trial court’s finding that both oral agreements (between the brothers and between Plaintiff and Defendant) were valid and enforceable due to the testimony of third parties who were aware of the oral agreement between the brothers, and the existence of a written agreement that was drawn up after the oral contract between Plaintiff and Defendant was initially formed. The Court also found that Defendant owed a fiduciary duty to Plaintiff as he was a corporate officer and partner in the businesses, and upon George’s death, his interest in the businesses was transferred to Plaintiff. As such, the Court held that Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty to exercise “the highest degree of honesty and good faith” in dealing with Plaintiff, and Defendant breached that duty. The Court then vacated the trial court’s judgment on the unjust enrichment claim because Plaintiff was victorious on her breach of contract claim. The Court stated that unjust enrichment does not apply when there is a breach of contract under Illinois law. Finally, the Court reaffirmed the award of prejudgment interest because Plaintiff had been deprived of money that was rightfully hers, and Defendant should not profit from his wrongful retention of the funds.

Prignano v. Prignano exemplifies why business owners should have all of their business agreements and contracts reviewed by a trained legal professional. Family business owners, in particular, should guard against casual or oral agreements, as personal relationships can be strained when there is a misunderstanding regarding such agreements. If you are unsure about the legality or legitimacy of your business agreements, or are currently in a dispute, you should consult a discerning Chicago and Naperville business attorney to determine your rights.

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