Chicago Business Litigation Lawyer Blog

Video Describing 4 Common Types of Consumer Fraud — Our Chicago Attorneys Handle Many Types of Individual and Class Action Consumer Fraud Lawsuits

June 18, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

Our Chicago, Wheaton, Naperville and Waukegan, Illinois consumer fraud attorneys found the below video on 4 common types of consumer fraud to be informative.

Based in Chicago, Wilmette and Oak Brook, Ill., Lubin Austermuehle handles informercial, stock broker, auto dealer and RV dealer fraud and other consumer fraud litigation for clients in Wheaton, Naperville,Waukegan, Evanston, Joliet, Aurora, Elgin, Lisle and in other parts of Illinois, the Midwest and throughout the United States. In addition to helping individuals and families, our Chicago class action attorneys have successfully handled numerous consumer rights class actions. If you believe you’re a victim of fraud and misrepresentations or a deceptive business practice, please contact us as soon as possible to learn about your rights at a free consultation.

New Report by National Consumer Law Center on Auto Dealers Taking Advantage of Working Families — Naperville, Oak Brook, Wheaton and Chicago Lemon Law Attorneys Who Fight to Protect Working Families

June 18, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

As Chicago Wheaton and Illinois autofraud and lemon law attorneys we took note of a report released earlier this year by the National Consumer Law Center (“NCLC”) concludes that:

Buying a reliable, quality used car for a fair price is nearly impossible for America’s working families who often fall victim to unfair financing ploys, deceptive sales practices, exorbitant fees, and fraud.

A summary of the report is posted here.

Company Must Have Trial on Whether It Breached Golden Parachute Contract With Termination of CEO, Appeals Court Rules

June 17, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

In a breach of contract and Illinois Wage Payment Act case, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled that a company and its former executive must have a trial to determine whether it breached the executive’s employment contract. Covinsky v. Hannah Marine Corporation, No. 1-08-0695 (Ill. 1st. Feb. 17, 2009). At issue in the case is a severance clause in Jeffrey Covinsky’s employment contract with Hannah Marine Corp., for which he served as president, CEO and CFO from 1998 to 2006.

Covinsky’s contract specified that he was entitled to a “golden parachute” of 18 months’ salary if there is “…a change in the present ownership which results in the termination of the Employee’s employment…” This agreement was executed in 2004, when Hannah Marine was jointly owned by three people, including Donald Hannah. Hannah sued the other shareholders in 2005 for financial mismanagement, and ended up buying out the other two shareholders. Covinsky told Hannah in 2005 that he assumed Hannah would want to let him go after the change; in 2006, Covinsky told Hannah he did not intend to resign and wanted to finish the contract, which was set to expire in 2006.

A month later, when the takeover was final, Hannah told Covinsky that he was terminated and that Hannah “accepted” Covinsky’s resignation. Covinsky protested that he never resigned, but was not paid the severance. He sued Hannah Marine and Donald Hannah for breach of the employment contract and violating the Illinois Wage Payment Act. Hannah countersued Covinsky for breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court granted summary judgment to Covinsky on both counts as to Hannah Marine, but dismissed the Wage Act claim against Hannah personally. It also dismissed the company’s counterclaim. Both sides appealed, resulting in the consolidated instant appeal.

Homeowners May Bring Derivative Claim Against Association’s Board of Directors, Appeals Court Rules

June 7, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

A group of Chicago condo owners may proceed with a derivative lawsuit against their homeowners’ association’s Board of Directors, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled. In Davis v. Dyson, No. 1-07-2927 (Ill. 1st Dec. 19, 2008), twelve condo owners sued individuals formerly on the board of directors after the board members failed to detect embezzlement by an outside property manager. Furthermore, the homeowners alleged, the former board members failed to get enough insurance or get an attorney’s advice on their duty to do so, resulting in losses and out-of-pocket costs of more than $800,000 after the embezzlement was detected.

The homeowner plaintiffs sued for breach of fiduciary duty under two counts — one derivative claim on behalf of the association and one claim as individual homeowners whose property values were allegedly harmed by the directors’ inaction. In response, board members argued that the homeowners lacked standing to sue in both claims — for the individual claim, because the property value claim did not constitute a separate and distinct harm to the individual homeowners. For the derivative claim, the board members argued that only the board itself may bring a derivative action against third parties. The trial court agreed and dismissed both claims; the homeowners appealed.

In its analysis, the appeals court pointed out that shareholders have an undisputed right to sue their own boards of directors; the question was whether they may file a derivative claim against third parties (in this case, the former directors). The court concluded that they could, pointing out that the right to file a derivative suit puts homeowners into the association’s shoes. This means that they are acting on behalf of the association, the opinion said, not usurping its undisputed right to sue third parties. The relevant section of the Illinois Condominium Property Act does not prevent derivative claims by homeowners, the court wrote, so it saw no reason to deviate from caselaw on derivative actions.

Best Websites to Learn About Consumer Law Issues — Our DuPage, Lake, and Cook County, and Chicago Illinois Consumer Attorneys Can Assist You in Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act Lawsuits

June 7, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

One of the best websites to learn about consumer law issues Is the Illinois Attorney General’s website. The site contains numerous links to useful consumer protection warnings and links to other top consumer websites. The Illinois Attorney General also provides forms for filing consumer fraud complaints with the Attorney General.

Our consumer rights private law firm handles individual and class action cases that government agencies and public interest law firms such as the Illinois Attorney General may not pursue. Class action lawsuits our law firm has been involved in or spear-headed have led to substantial awards totalling over a million dollars to organizations including the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Consumer Law Center, and local law school consumer programs. Lubin Austermuehle is proud of our achievements in assisting national and local consumer rights organizations obtain the funds needed to ensure that consumers are protected and informed of their rights. By standing up to consumer fraud and consumer rip-offs, and in the right case filing consumer protection lawsuits and class-actions you too can help ensure that other consumers’ rights are protected from consumer rip-offs and unscrupulous or dishonest practices.

Our Naperville, Aurora, Waukegan, Joliet, Elgin, Highland Park, Northbrook, Wilmette, Wheaton, Oak Brook, and Chicago consumer lawyers provide assistance in consumer fraud and consumer rights cases including in Illinois and throughout the country. You can click here to see a description of the some of the many individual and class-action consumer cases we have handled. A video of our lawsuit which helped ensure more fan friendly security at Wrigley Field can be found here. You can contact one of our Chicago area consumer protection lawyers who can assist in lemon law, unfair debt collection, junk fax, prerecorded telephone solicitations, and other consumer, consumer fraud or consumer class action cases by filling out the contact form at the side of this blog or by clicking here.

Second District Court of Appeal Upholds Nominal Judgment for Plaintiffs’ Failure to State Reasonable Basis for Damages

June 1, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

In a hard-fought Illinois consumer fraud lawsuit over deception by a condominium developer, the Second District Court of Appeal has upheld an award involving both nominal damages and punitive damages. In Kirkpatrick v. Strosberg, Nos. 2-06-0724 and 2-06-0731 (Ill. 2nd Aug. 8, 2008), four plaintiffs, led by John Kirkpatrick, sued a real estate developer over misrepresentations about the square footage and ceiling height of the luxury condominiums they purchased in Glen Ellyn, Ill.

Defendant Morningside Development Group is general partner of defendant Glen Astor Condominium Investors LP, a residential real estate developer. Defendant David Strosberg is Morningside’s president. Glen Astor entered into contracts with the plaintiffs for their purchase of luxury condos on the top floor of a development. Before purchasing the condos, the plaintiffs allege, they read sales materials promising nine-foot ceilings and specific amounts of square footage in the units. In three cases, floor plans specifying square footage were incorporated into their contracts. A rider to the contracts specified that dimensions are approximate and subject to adjustments due to the location of building components. During construction, the builder had to lower the ceilings by six inches because of the size of roof components. After buying the condos, the plaintiffs realized that both the square footage and the ceiling heights were smaller than promised.

At trial for the subsequent lawsuit, the court determined that the difference in square footage resulted from differences between how LeNoble and the plaintiffs’ own appraiser measured the square footage, but that LeNoble’s smaller measurements were appropriate and proper. Thus, the court struck down the square footage claims. Finally, it found for the plaintiffs on the breach of contract claims regarding the lowered ceiling. It found that there were actual damages, but that the plaintiffs’ expert appraiser had not given adequate information about damages. The breach of contract took place in 1997, the court said, but Philips gave a diminished value as of 2004 that was “nothing more than a guess without proper basis.” Thus, the court awarded nominal damages of $100 each on the breach of contract and Consumer Fraud Act claims regarding the ceilings. It also awarded $300,000 in punitive damages and $83,000 in attorney fees.

Material Breach of Contract Invalidates Covenant Not to Compete, Illinois First District Rules

May 27, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

Our firm’s Illinois non-compete agreement litigation lawyers were pleased to note a ruling by the First District Court of Appeal that a doctor may not bring a lawsuit against his former business partner for breaching a non-compete agreement. Bisla v. Parvaiz, No. 1-07-1647 (Ill. 1st., Feb. 21, 2008), arose out of a soured employment arrangement between Dr. Virenda Bisla and Dr. Akhtar Parvaiz, both doctors in Chicago. Bisla hired Parvaiz as an employee in 1998, under an agreement specifying that Parvaiz would have the opportunity to become a 50% partner in Bisla’s medical company after three years, if he met certain criteria. It also specified that Bisla would provide medical insurance for Parvaiz and his family, and malpractice insurance in Indiana for Parvaiz.

Neither type of insurance was provided to Parvaiz, according to the First District. And when the three years in the agreement had passed, Bisla did not offer Parvaiz a 50% share of the company, as agreed. Instead, he offered Parvaiz a 45% share, spread over five years, and presented him with a new employment contract and stock purchase agreement. Bisla told Parvaiz that it was in his best interests to sign these papers, but Parvaiz refused because they did not comply with the original employment agreement. He continued working for Bisla’s company for the next five years, but believed that they were using an oral contract since the first employment contract had expired.

The next year, Bisla’s company was temporarily dissolved by the State of Illinois for nonpayment of a filing fee. Bisla did not tell Parvaiz about the dissolution, which automatically terminated their employment agreement. However, in 2005, Parvaiz began working for a competing medical company. When Bisla found out, he demanded a share of the proceeds, then fired Parvaiz and eventually brought a lawsuit seeking to stop him from competing. Parvaiz countered that he believed the agreement was over. The trial court agreed, finding that their agreement was invalid because the employment agreement was breached by both the temporary dissolution and Bisla’s refusal to make Parvaiz a partner. It denied the injunction Bisla sought against Parvaiz, and Bisla appealed.

Fourth District Court of Appeal Finds Company May Be Liable For Causing Another Company’s False Claim to Be Presented

May 22, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

In an Illinois state qui tam lawsuit, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled that an accounting company may be held liable for knowingly allowing another company to submit a fraudulent claim to the state. In Illinois Health Facilities Authority ex rel. Scachitti v. Morgan Stanley, 887 N.E.2d 601 (April 2, 2008), three individual plaintiffs brought suit against financial services company Morgan Stanley Dean Witter and accounting firm Ernst & Young for an alleged scheme to defraud the Illinois Health Facilities Authority under the Illinois Whistleblower Reward and Protection Act.

The case arose out of a bond refinancing attempt by the Authority. In order to pay off revenue bonds, it issued “advance refunding” bonds, which are normally tax-exempt. However, if the proceeds of these bonds are reinvested in securities with a higher yield, they lose their tax-exempt status unless the profits go to the U.S. Treasury. To ensure they did not lose the tax exemption, the Authority hired Morgan Stanley as an underwriter for the advance refunding bonds and Ernst & Young to verify Morgan Stanley’s work.

Defendants accuse Morgan Stanley of fraudulently “yield burning” by charging abovemarket rates for the bonds — ensuring that they would not become taxable — and pocketing the $21,000 difference. They also accuse Ernst of abetting this behavior by knowingly hiding it in its audit. They both companies for violating the Whistleblower Act, and Ernst for aiding and abetting Morgan Stanley’s violations. The Cook County trial court dismissed the claims against Ernst for failure to state a sufficient cause of action. The plaintiffs appealed.

Attorney Fees Are Actual Damages in Legal Malpractice Claims, Second District Rules

May 17, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

Our Illinois legal malpractice lawyers recently noted an appellate decision from the Second District establishing that attorney fees are “actual damages” within the meaning of Illinois law. Nettleton v. Stogsdill, No. 2-07-1215 (Ill. 2nd Dec. 29, 2008). The ruling arose out of a legal malpractice claim by Margaret Nettleton, who was unhappy with the representation provided by attorney William J. Stogsdill, Jr., in her divorce.

Nettleton retained Stogsdill in 2001 for her divorce, whose trial was set for late 2002. On the day before trial, however, an associate from Stogsdill’s office appeared to ask for a continuance because Stogsdill was in another trial and unable to attend or prepare. The motion was denied, but a two-day continuance was granted the next day when Stogsdill himself appeared. On the day of the new trial, Stogsdill asked for a voluntary nonsuit, which was denied because he hadn’t given notice to all of the parties. He then called Nettleson to the stand, where he asked her to state and spell her name. He then rested her case. The divorce was not granted. Stogsdill filed a second petition for dissolution, but Nettleton fired him about two months later. (She was represented by four other firms before her divorce was granted.)

Nettleton eventually sued, alleging that Stogsdill and his firm committed malpractice by being unprepared, by moving for a nonsuit without her consent and by putting her on the witness stand and then resting without her consent. The damages she cited included loss of the attorney fees paid to both Stogsdill and other attorneys. The trial court granted Stogsdill’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Nettleton hadn’t demonstrated actual damages caused by Stogsdill’s actions — she hadn’t shown that she would have received a larger divorce settlement if not for Stogsdill. After various other legal maneuvers, Nettleton appealed.

Fourth Circuit Rules That False Claims Act Applies to Contracting Fraud Against Iraqi Coalition Provisional Authority

May 15, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

Individual whistleblowers may sue a defense contractor that allegedly defrauded the Iraqi provisional government out of millions during the early part of the Iraq war, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled April 10. United States of America ex rel. DRC Inc. v. Custer Battles LLC, No. 07-1220 (April, 2009) was a federal whistleblower lawsuit testing whether the federal False Claims Act, which allows lawsuits against contractors defrauding the federal government, applies to the multinational interim Iraqi government set up after the U.S. invasion of that country. The Fourth Circuit found that it did, reasoning that U.S. personnel working for the CPA may still have been working in their capacity as federal employees.

The case grew out of the discovery of fraud by Custer Battles LLC, a contractor hired to help the CPA replace existing Iraqi dinars that bore Saddam Hussein’s face with dinars without his face. They were paid $15 million for this work, including a $3 million check from the U.S. Treasury and other payments from the CPA’s funds authorized by U.S. personnel. The fraud was discovered after the firm’s founders accidentally left a spreadsheet at a meeting site showing they had inflated the bills submitted to the CPA for reimbursement by many thousands of dollars.

Subcontractor DRC Inc., its managing director, Robert Isakson, and former Custer Battles employee William Baldwin sued Custer Battles on behalf of the federal government under the False Claims Act. They alleged fraud on both contracts as well as illegal retaliation against Baldwin, who said he was fired after trying to investigate the fraud. The trial court dismissed parts of the claim on summary judgment and limited the plaintiffs’ recovery to the $3 million that it could trace with confidence to the U.S. Treasury. Considering only that part of the case, the jury returned the maximum possible $3 million verdict, plus $165,000 in damages for Baldwin’s retaliation claim.