Best Chicago Business Dispute Attorneys

Illinois Court Upholds Sanctions for Pursuing Trade Secrets Claims in Bad Faith

February 12, 2021 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

Statutory fee-shifting is usually meant to incentivize plaintiffs to bring claims involving important rights but relatively low monetary damages. Some statutes provide for fee-shifting not only to successful plaintiffs but also to successful defendants. As the recent decision in the case of Multimedia Sales & Marketing, Inc. v. Marzullo illustrates, plaintiffs considering bringing trade secret misappropriation claims in Illinois courts would be wise to review their claims before filing so to ensure that their claims are not meritless.

The plaintiff in the lawsuit, Multimedia Sales & Marketing, Inc., is a radio advertiser who sued a competitor, Radio Advertising, Inc., along with three former employees who left Multimedia to work for Radio Advertising. Multimedia alleged that the former employees misappropriated Multimedia’s potential customer lead lists or renewal lead lists, which these individuals allegedly used to attempt to woo away Multimedia’s existing and potential customers. Multimedia claimed the lists were protectable trade secrets under the Illinois Trade Secrets Act (ITSA), 765 ILCS 1065/1 et seq.

The trial court disagreed and granted the defendants summary judgment finding that the lists (1) did not qualify as a trade secret under ITSA, and (2) were not “secret” because Multimedia widely shared them with numerous parties including radio stations. Following the grant of summary judgment, the defendants filed a motion for attorney’s fees as permitted by Section 5 of the ITSA. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion and awarded them $71,688 in attorney’s fees. Multimedia then appealed the ruling that the lists did not qualify as trade secrets as well as the award of attorney’s fees. Continue reading ›

Lubin Austermuehle Files Amicus Brief in Illinois Supreme Court on Behalf of the National Association of Consumer Advocates and Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety

March 20, 2019 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

Our firm today filed an amicus brief or friend of the court brief in the on behalf of the National Association of Consumer Advocates and Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety in an important consumer rights case and commercial law case, arising out of an interpretation of a provision of the Uniform Commercial Code. That provision expressly allows for consumers to revoke acceptance of and return for a full refund a product with hidden defects without having to allow the seller the opportunity to repair the defects. The express language of UCC requires this result yet the trial and the appellate court ignored the plain language of the UCC and that the majority of states interpret this provision of the UCC to allow for revocation of acceptance without any opportunity to cure. The Illinois Supreme Court decisions dictate that Illinois should follow the majority view of the other States in interpreting UCC provisions.

This case involves an RV that Plaintiffs bought in April for a summer vacation. When the RV turned out to be allegedly defective (massive water leaks), and when, by August, the RV Dealer/Warrantor allegedly would not give an estimate as to when it would repair the RV, and allegedly refused to “cure,” Plaintiffs revoked acceptance and canceled their contract. Continue reading ›

Jury Awards Broadway Producers Only $90,000 for Contract Interference Claims – Chicago and Naperville Business and Partnership Dispute Lawyers

July 15, 2017 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

If a new musical was a hit in places like Vienna, but can’t get the funding to start on Broadway, is it fair to assume it’s the fault of the producers or the publicist? Or is it just another case of bad luck in a notoriously difficult industry?

Producers Ben Sprecher and Louise Forlenza poured millions into getting their new musical, “Rebecca,” on the Broadway stage, but it looks now as if that will never happen.

The ill-fated musical, based on the gothic novel of the same name by Daphne du Maurier, first started experiencing problems when the producers put their faith in Mark C. Hutton, a stockbroker who promised Sprecher and Forlenza he would deliver investors. After Hutton claimed to have investors who would put $4.5 million into the project, the producers moved forward with their planning of the show without ever meeting any of the investors Hutton said he had lined up. Hutton then sent them a message saying one of the investors had died and all the money had been lost. It later came to light that none of the investors had ever actually existed and Hutton was arrested for committing fraud. Continue reading ›