Articles Posted in Commercial Litigation

by

The Illinois Appellate Court has reversed and remanded a decision by a Cook County Circuit Judge relating to a sale agreement for a condominium purchase. In November 2010, the Habitat Co., the Gautreaux Development Manager for the Chicago Housing Authority, signed a purchase and sale agreement with Tera Healy to buy her condominium for $250,000. The contract was contingent on Habitat and Healy getting final approval from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Healy’s lender approving a short payoff.

These approvals were met, but the 3721-3723 Elston Condominium Association intervened, exercising its right of first refusal and purchased Healy’s condominium. The housing authority filed a lawsuit against the association, charging it with tortious interference of contract and breach of contract, seeking specific performance: the sale of the condominium.

The authority argued that the contract between Habitat and Healy was valid and binding. Moreover, the authority argued that the association did not have the right of first refusal contained in any of its declarations or bylaws, but nonetheless attempted to exercise this right.

Continue reading

by

Shuffle Tech made automatic card-shuffling equipment for the consumer market and particularly for casinos. In 2010, Shuffle Tech and Wolff Gaming, a distributor of the equipment, signed a letter of intent that expressed their mutual commitment to proceed with a draft agreement regarding product development and distribution.

The agreement laid out a deal in which Shuffle Tech and Wolff Gaming would collaborate to develop a casino-grade shuffling machine. In return for providing financial assistance, Wolff would become the exclusive equipment distributor in the Western Hemisphere.

The next year, but before the new equipment was developed, Shuffle Tech wrote to Wolff proposing that the companies part ways and settle all outstanding business. Several months later, Shuffle Tech filed a lawsuit in the federal court seeking a declaratory judgment that the draft agreement was not an enforceable contract, that the letter of intent was enforceable and that Wolff had broken the letter of intent agreement.

Continue reading

by

Gamesa Technology Corp. entered into a contract with Minnesota-based Outland Renewable Energy to provide maintenance for Gamesa’s wind turbines. Iberdrola Renewables Inc. runs the Gamesa-made turbines at the Cayuga Wind Farm located in Livingston County, Ill.

While servicing a Cayuga turbine, one of Outland’s employees, Aaron McCoy, was electrocuted when the turbine unexpectedly re-energized. McCoy filed a personal injury lawsuit in state court against Iberdrola Renewables and Gamesa. The case was removed from state court to federal court on diversity of citizenship grounds. Iberdrola Renewables impleaded Outland Renewable Energy LLC, claiming indemnification based on the contract and the Illinois Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act.

Outland then filed 22 counterclaims, which included indemnification raising federal and state anti-trust claims and other state law claims. Outland was not successful in seeking a preliminary injunction against Gamesa’s allegedly unfair competitive practices.

Continue reading

by

A class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against a window manufacturer. The basis for the reversal of the approved $90 million settlement for the class-action lawsuit claiming defective windows was due to inequities with respect to the attorney fees of approximately $11 million; meanwhile, the clients — the consumers — would get less than $8.5 million in total.

According to a section of the court’s opinion written by Justice Richard A. Posner, the “class counsel sold out the class.” The settlement was approved by the district court judge and has now been reversed.

The class-action lawsuit claimed that casement windows manufactured between 1991 and 2006 for Pella Corp.’s “Pro-Line Series” had a design defect.

Continue reading

by

F. Gary Kovac, the plaintiff in this matter, sued the estate of Kenneth L. Barron Jr. for compensatory damages and exemplary or punitive damages. In the majority of jurisdictions, punitive damages are not allowed after the death of the defendant tortfeasor.

Kovac and Barron owned 50% of three different corporations. In his original lawsuit, Kovac accused Barron of a pattern of serious misconduct, which included diverting millions of dollars from the businesses. Kovac sued Barron in Kane County, Ill. When Barron died, Kovac continued the lawsuit against the administrator of Barron’s estate who was his widow, Sandra Barron.

At the end of the bench trial, the trial judge ordered Barron’s estate to pay $3,220,702 for fraud and an additional $450,000 in punitive damages.

Continue reading

by

The Illinois Appellate Court for the First District in Chicago has found that a person can be held liable for a corporation’s debt even if he or she is not an officer or shareholder of the corporation.

In a case that amounts to a decision of wide-ranging implications and one of first impression on Illinois, the appeals court found that a default judgment in the amount of $421,582 against Palos Heights-based Silver Fox Pastries Inc. led to a judgment against an individual corporate “alter ego,” the defendant Haitham Aduzir.

The lawsuit brought against Silver Fox Pastries was for violations of the Illinois Trade Secrets Act.  In that lawsuit, first filed in 2006, the plaintiff John Buckley claimed that Silver Fox was a direct competitor of his business, Momma Gramm’s Bakery Inc. and that it had hired away two of its employees.

Continue reading

by

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago has agreed that a concert ticket tying parking to the music concert was not a violation of the federal antitrust laws. 

James Batson brought a ticket from O.A.R. Concert at Live Nation’s box office at the 3 on July 10, 2010.  After buying the ticket, Batson noticed on the face of the ticket that a $9 parking fee was included in the price. Every ticket sold included the fee regardless of whether the buyer needed to park a car.

Batson filed suit alleging violations of federal antitrust law as well as California’s unfair competition law.  Live Nation moved to dismiss.

Continue reading

by

On Dec. 17, 2007, Rico Industries entered into an agreement with TLC Group Inc., in which TLC would serve as Rico’s exclusive sales representative to Wal-Mart.

Rico, an Illinois corporation that specializes in production of novelty and sports-affiliated merchandise, entered into the agreement, specifying that any change, cancellation or termination of the agreement must be mutually agreed by both TLC and Rico in writing.

Rico claimed that it was not represented by an attorney during the negotiations and drafting of the contract.  Further, Rico claimed that in the drafting of the contract, the entire length of which was under one page,  there were no other conditions in which the contract could be terminated.

Continue reading