Chicago Business Litigation Lawyer Blog

A Guarantor is Not a Surety Under the Illinois Sureties Act

April 13, 2011 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

At DiTommaso Lubin, we pride ourselves on staying abreast of changes in the law that may affect our clients, especially those rendered by the highest court in the state. The Supreme Court of Illinois released a new decision not long ago that was picked up by our Lombard business litigation attorneys, and the case is of particular interest to business owners who have personally guaranteed a business loan. In JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Earth Foods, Inc. the Court addressed the meaning of the term surety and whether a guarantor falls within that definition under the Illinois Sureties Act.

The initial dispute in JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Earth Foods, Inc. arose from a line of credit extended by Plaintiff JP Morgan Chase Bank to Defendant Earth Foods. The loan was personally guaranteed by the three co-owners of Earth Foods, and three years after the line of credit was first extended, Earth Foods defaulted on the loan. Plaintiff then filed a lawsuit against both the company for breach of contract and the co-owners as guarantors of the defaulted loan. The individual Defendants asserted an affirmative defense that the guaranty obligation was discharged under the Sureties Act because the Act applies to both guarantors and sureties and the law does not distinguish between the two. Plaintiffs then filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted by the trial court. In granting the motion, the court held that the individual Defendants were guarantors and the Act only applied to sureties. Defendants appealed the trial court’s decision, and the appellate court held that the term surety encompassed both a surety and a guarantor under the Act and remanded the case. Plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court to review the appellate court’s reversal.

On appeal, the Supreme Court performed an extensive statutory analysis of the Illinois Sureties Act. In performing this analysis, the Court first determined that dictionaries, treatises and past court decisions recognize a clear legal distinction between guarantors and sureties. They then went on to determine the legislative intent behind the Sureties Act through a discussion of other laws related to the same subject matter. Through their discussion, the Court held that a suretyship differs from a guaranty in that a suretyship is a primary obligation to ensure the debt is paid, while a guaranty is an obligation to pay the debt if the principal does not pay. The Court went on to say that the plain language of the Act indicates that the protections of the Sureties Act are not applicable to guarantors. Despite this ruling, the Court held that summary judgment was improperly granted in JP Morgan Chase Bank’s favor and remanded the case to the trial court due to genuine issues of fact regarding whether the parties intended the individual Defendants to be guarantors or sureties for the loan in question.

JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Earth Foods, Inc. unequivocally answered the question whether the terms surety and guarantor are interchangeable for the purposes of the Illinois Sureties Act. Despite the fact that there is a clear distinction between the two, the Supreme Court allows for the intent of the parties to rule when including either term in a loan agreement. Therefore, business owners should be careful when drafting and negotiating the terms of a guarantor or a surety and be clear which role is intended by the parties to avoid a potential lawsuit down the road.

Appellate Court of Illinois Orders in Camera Review of Potentially Privileged Documents in Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty

April 12, 2011 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Business litigation is necessarily an adversarial process – the stakes are high and as such the opposing parties in most lawsuits will fight over many issues during the case. One of the most contentious segments of any case is the discovery process. Because the information obtained during discovery can make or break a case, it is important to understand the law in this area. In that vein, our Berwyn business attorneys would like to share a recent Illinois Appellate Court decision that may affect many of our clients the next time they go to court.

In Mueller Industries Inc. v. Berkman, Defendant Berkman worked for Plaintiff as president of a company owned by Plaintiff pursuant to an employment contract. During his employment, Defendant formed an investment partnership and obtained a 10% ownership interest in a company that was one of Plaintiff’s primary suppliers. Defendant’s lawyer – whose firm was also counsel for Plaintiff – advised him how to structure the investment venture so as to not run afoul of his employment contract with Plaintiff. The initial employment agreement subsequently expired, and a new open-ended agreement was consummated that contained a non-compete clause and other restrictive covenants governing outside financial interests and business opportunities. Defendant then had his attorney form a new company to compete with Plaintiff, and Defendant subsequently resigned his position with Plaintiff.

Plaintiff filed suit for breach of his employment contract and breach of fiduciary duty, alleging Defendant profited personally at the expense of Mueller through his investment partnership. A discovery dispute ensued when Defendant refused to produce documents related to his investment in the supply company and his creation of the competing company. Defendant refused production based upon the 5th amendment and attorney-client privileges. Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production, which was granted by the trial court.

Defendant appealed the trial court’s grant of the motion, and reasserted that the documents were privileged. The Appellate Court reversed in part, holding that Defendant’s pre-existing relationship with his lawyer kept all communication prior to the attorney’s firm’s representation of Plaintiff privileged. However, all communications after the dual representation began were no longer so protected because Defendant no longer had any reasonable expectation of confidentiality. Finally, the Court found that Defendant had failed to demonstrate that producing the requested documents would amount to incriminating testimony, but remanded the case with orders for the lower court to perform an in camera review of the disputed documents and urged the trial court to make a detailed record of its findings.

Video Describing How Consumers Can be Defrauded into Purchasing a Rebuilt Wreck — Our Chicago Auto Fraud Lawyers Sue Used Car Dealers Who Defraud Consumers into Purchasing Rebuilt Wrecks

March 29, 2011 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Below is a video describing that common practice of deceiving used car buyers into purchasing a rebuilt wreck.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2ykYxvB43M

If you have already fallen victim to this scam or other used car frauds our Chicago lemon law and auto fraud lawyers may be able to assist you.

Illinois Appellate Court grants Preliminary Injunction in Action to Enforce Non-Competition Clause in Employment Contract

March 29, 2011 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

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.

New York Times Reports on Class-Action Lawsuit Which Alleges that Kaba Push Button Locks Are Susceptible to a Magnet Opening Them

March 28, 2011 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

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.

Wall Street Joural Reports Apple Sues HTC

March 28, 2011 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Our Chicago commercial litigation attorneys at DiTommaso Lubin handle complex class action lawsuits and other commercial disputes. You can contact us on the internet by clicking here or call us at our toll free number 630-333-0333.

Wall Street Journal Reports: “Howard Stern Sues Sirius XM”

March 28, 2011 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

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.

Bloomberg Reports: “AIG, Three Others Will Pay $27 Million in Antitrust Suit”

March 24, 2011 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

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.

Illinois Federal District Court Denies Class Certification for Violations of IMWL and IWPCA Under FRCP 23

March 21, 2011 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

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 DiTommaso Lubin, 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.

Home Media Magazine Reports: “Class-action Suit Filed Against Family Video”

March 17, 2011 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

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.