Johnson
& Bell Attorneys
and successfully defended
three Cook County
real estate appraisers in a professional liability suit
brought by a prominent federal savings bank.The suit alleged that the three appraisers had falsely
and negligently appraised the value of a commercial office
building located in Matteson, Illinois.The bank claimed
that the office building was worth only $700,000 while the
appraisers had valued the building at $2.5 million.The bank further claimed that it extended a $2.3
million loan in reliance upon the appraisal and the loan
eventually defaulted.
Joseph
R. Marconi
Victor
J. Pioli
After
six days of trial before a jury and after the bank had
presented its case, the appraisers moved the court for a
directed verdict on the basis that the bank had failed to
sustain its burden of proving its case.The judge granted the appraisers’ motion and a
verdict was entered in favor of the appraisers finding no
liability.
If you have any
questions about the issues in this case please contact Mr.
Marconi at (312) 984-0211 or marconij@jbltd.com or
Mr. Pioli at (312) 984-0276 or pioliv@jbltd.com.
On
March 1 the First District Appellate Court of Illinois in Liebert
Corporation, and Zonatherm Products, Inc. v. John Mazur, Gregory N.
Schwabe, Jerome Mazur, Mario Belluomini, Laurence Bergfalk,
Aerico, Inc. and American
Power Conversion Corporation reversed,
in part, the trial court’s denial of Liebert Corporation and
Zonatherm Products, Inc.’s motion for preliminary injunction
seeking relief from their former employee’s misappropriation
of trade secrets, and conspiracy to develop competing business
in order to join forces witha competitor.
Liebert
Corporation manufactures and sells computer protection
equipment that provides uninterrupted network power and
climate control technologies. Liebert is in the industry
leader in the marketplace. American Power
Conversion (APC) is
trying to penetrate that market.
In
late 2003 and early 2004, APC sought to solicit key employees
of Zonatherm, Liebert’s sales representative in
Chicago, to form a new firm, Aerico.
Joseph
R. Marconi
Michael
P. Siavelis
David
M. Macksey
Kathryn
R. Hoying
Computer forensic evidence
established that the day he resigned from Zonatherm, John
Mazur downloaded the equivalent of 41 banker boxes of
information from secured sites of Zonatherm and Liebert.
After
being served with a motion for temporary restraining order,
Mazur proceeded to burn CDs of the information and attempted
to delete the information taken.
The
Appellate Court found that Liebert’s price books were trade
secrets and that defendant, John Mazur, Zonatherm’s former
territory sales manager, engaged in a campaign to delete
information from his laptop computer in order to cover his
tracks after burning Liebert and Zonatherm’s trade secrets
onto multiple CD’s.
The
Appellate Court reversed the trial court that refused to enter
an injunction in reliance upon Mazur’s assertion he did not
keep any of the trade secrets taken. In the 43-page opinion,
the Appellate Court states that Mazur’s reasoning that he
deleted the trade secrets because he did not need them anymore
“rings hollow” in light of the basis Mazur provided as to
why he attempted to burn the CD’s in the first place.Accepting Mazur’s testimony, according to the
Appellate Court, “requires more gullibility than we are
willing to provide.”The Court went on to say:
“In
addition to this presumption against Mazur, the circumstances
surrounding his departure from Zonatherm cast doubt on his
denials. Not only did Mazur accept a substantially similar
sales position with a competitor while working for Zonatherm,
he started a competing business two months before resigning
and never informed Zonatherm of his intentions until the day
he quit. The parties do not dispute Aerico and Zonatherm, and
the manufacturers they represent, APC and Liebert, are direct
competitors. There is no question Mazur downloaded a
substantial amount of Zonatherm’s confidential information
one day after he signed the agreement with APC. Plaintiffs
also presented evidence that APC executives wanted to
“cripple Liebert in
Chicago
for at least six months” by convincing its sales
representatives to switch companies. Although Mazur signed an
agreement with APC that he would not use Zonatherm’s
information on behalf of APC, an e-mail from an APC executive
indicated that just before Mazur started working for APC he
told a Liebert customer that he would approach it with an APC
offering.”
The
cause has been remanded back to the trial court so that
appropriate injunctive relief can be fashioned. Liebert and
Zonatherm were represented in both the trial and appeal by
Johnson & Bell Attorneys , ,
and .
If you wish additional information on this case, please
contact Mr. Marconi at (312) 984-0211 or marconij@jbltd.com.
On
April 14 the U. S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss and dismissed the plaintiff's Second Amended
Complaint with prejudice. Plaintiff's had alleged
that the defendants, a corporation and its directors,
had violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934, as well the securities laws of
the states of Missouri, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey,
and Maine. These violations allegedly occurred as
the result of the defendants' offer to sell convertible
debentures and warrants to the plaintiffs.
Joseph
R. Marconi
Kathryn
R. Hoying
The
Court first noted that the plaintiffs had failed to meet the
heightened pleading requirements set forth in the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which governed the
federal securities claims, or Rule 9(b), which governed the
common law and various state securities law claims.
Specifically, the plaintiffs had continued to couch their
claims of fraud in vague terms and had failed to identify the
speaker of the alleged false statements, the statement made,
and the reason why the statement was misleading.
Moreover,
the Court held that the allegations where the plaintiffs might
have complied with the pleading requirements for either the
PSLRA or Rule 9(b) were immaterial as a matter of law. Most of
the statements were “either so vague and such obvious
hyperbole that no reasonable investor would rely upon them or
they were accompanied by sufficient cautionary statements.”
The
cause has been dismissed with prejudice as the plaintiffs had
ample time to correctly plead their claims. If you have any
questions about the issues in this case please contact
Attorneys
at (312) 984-0211 or marconij@jbltd.com
or
at (312) 984-0287 or hoyingk@jbltd.com.
On
May 5 Attorney and Professor John Matthews gave a
presentation to Chicago area Daimler Chrysler dealers at
the Chicago Automobile Trade Association headquarters in
Oakbrook Terrace. The presentation focused on
Daimler Chrysler's desire to reduce its number of U.S.
metro dealers, preferring fewer, more profitable dealers
and how this stated wish effects Chicago area Daimler
Chrysler dealers.
Marconi
also addressed the Illinois Motor Vehicle Franchise Act,
which regulates motor vehicle dealers to prevent fraud,
impositions and other abuses.
Marconi has substantial experience in litigation matters
involving auto dealers. Matthews has been involved
in approximately fifty auto dealer-manufacturer cases
during the last three decades. He is a professor in
the Graduate School of Business at the University of
Wisconsin, Madison.
Joseph
R. Marconi
If you have any
questions about this presentation please contact Mr. Marconi
at (312) 984-0211 or marconij@jbltd.com.
