Cases
Representative Cases: Completed a Tenant-In-Common transaction which ended several years of litigation between warring stakeholders. The final sale exceeded $85M in value. In this transaction, the two partners originally disagreed on, among other issues, the timing
sale price of the partnership's sole real estate asset resulting in several years of litigation. Johnson & Bell proposed a solution by which through a Tenant-in-Common (TIC) Agreement each party chose whether to sell or keep its own interest. The other party chose to sell immediately
that sale was consummated in late spring 2019 at a price that exceeded $60M. Johnson & Bell's client retained its interest
entered into a new partnership agreement with the entity that had bought out our client's previous partner. By retaining its interest in the property, Johnson & Bell's client delayed closing for a one-year holding period. At the same time, the TIC agreement enabled Johnson & Bell's client to qualify for
achieve considerable tax savings through a Sec. 1031 exchange
obtain a low interest loan on $10M for the holding period
receive profits from the asset during the holding period. Pursuant to the new partnership agreement the entire asset was sold to a third party in September 2020 for more than $85M. (2020) Please see related transaction completed in 2019 .
Successfully defended a Chicago law firm
one of its partners against fraud
breach of fiduciary duty charges related to an investment scam. The trial in DuPage County was one of the first conducted in Illinois since the COVID-19 p
emic halted most live judicial proceedings in the state. The case stemmed from a failed $5.75 million investment by a wealthy businessman into a tech startup which claimed to have an executed
enforceable contract with a multinational technology company to generate code that was potentially worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Our clients (the law firm
one of its partners) represented the startup in the investment deal
had also represented the wealthy businessman in other unrelated deals. The investment deal eventually closed
the $5.75 million was transmitted to the startup's founders. The investor later became suspicious of the deal when deadlines with the multinational technology company were not met pursuant to the terms of the contract. It was eventually discovered that there was, in fact, no deal with the technology company
that one of the startup's founders concocted the contract out of whole cloth
then absconded overseas after receiving his share of the $5.75 million investment from the wealthy businessman. The businessman then sued the law firm
lawyer who represented the startup in the investment deal as well as the remaining founder of the startup (who was also an attorney of counsel at the law firm) for fraud
breach of fiduciary duty. The businessman claimed that the defendants had breached their duties to him as a client
violated Rule of Professional Conduct 1.8 which generally prohibits business dealings with a client. He also claimed that the law firm
lawyer made statements to induce him to invest which were made knowing they were false or with reckless disregard for their truth thereby constituting fraud. After a week-long trial, which included witnesses testifying remotely due to the p
emic
numerous safety measures employed at the live proceedings, the court rendered its ruling which entered judgment in favor of the law firm
the lawyer on both the fraud
breach of fiduciary duty counts. (2020)
Successfully defended Crimson AV, LLC against charges of patent infringement
misappropriation of trade secrets. In a case tried to a jury
presided over by Judge Joan H. Lefkow, Johnson & Bell represented Crimson AV, a small manufacturer
distributor of television wall mounts based in Glenview, IL that was sued by Peerless Industries, Inc. Peerless Industries claimed that Crimson AV's wall mount design infringed its patent
further claimed that the company had misappropriated its trade secrets obtained while Crimson AV's Chinese supplier had previously served as a manufacturer for Peerless Industries. The Johnson & Bell trial team had to overcome a prior ruling by the court that Crimson AV's products infringed the plaintiff's patent, leaving Johnson & Bell to prove that the plaintiff's patent was invalid. In addition, the court entered a discovery sanction against Crimson AV that shifted the burden of proof on the trade secrets claim. After two weeks of trial, the jury deliberated for two days
returned a verdict finding the patent invalid
finding no trade secrets were at issue. Peerless Industries sought over $4 million in damages plus fees. Peerless Industries was represented by Foley & Lardner. (2016)
Successfully defended a home healthcare provider against an alleged breach of contract claim. Plaintiff claimed that it was entitled to a $1.7 million finder's fee in exchange for information that led to a $5 million per year VA contract. Prior to any disclosure of the purported confidential opportunity, our client entered into the contract, agreeing to pay a 5% finder's fee to plaintiff, if it secured the business. The finder's fee claim centered around two allegations: 1) that plaintiff performed its obligation by providing our client with confidential
proprietary information which ultimately led to the procurement of the business opportunity
2) as a result, the contract obligated our client to pay plaintiff 5% of gross revenues generated for as long as the business opportunity existed. Our attorneys contended that the information provided by plaintiff was a matter of public knowledge
was neither confidential nor proprietary. We also successfully argued that even if the contract was enforceable, any fee owing to the plaintiff was cut off by the sale of our client's assets, including the finder's fee contract. Finally, we demonstrated that the claimed 5% should be construed to apply to net profits
not gross revenues, as claimed by plaintiff. Since plaintiff only sought 5% of gross revenues
plaintiff did not offer any evidence as to what net profits were generated by the business opportunity, the court found that plaintiff did not prove its damages
was not entitled to collect anything. (2015)
Successfully defended an Illinois attorney charged with malpractice. Johnson & Bell's client was charged with malpractice by the co-owner of a former private equity business. Our client represented the owner in an underlying business dispute with his former partner. When the two former partners terminated their business relationship, a lawsuit was filed concerning the division of more than a million dollars in fees for outst
ing projects. The former partners eventually settled the litigation without their respective lawyers. However, the former co-owner later alleged that Johnson & Bell's client breached his obligations by failing to properly advise him regarding his exposure in the litigation. At trial, Marconi
Jalalpour successfully dismantled the defendant's expert witness testimony
established that the defendant's allegations were without merit. After five days of trial, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on the former client's malpractice claim against Johnson & Bell's client. In addition, the jury awarded our client $54,000 in fees owed by his client, the co-owner of the former private equity business. The jury also asked the court whether they could award punitive damages to our client. However, the court instructed the jury that punitive damages were not allowed in the claims submitted to the jury. (2015)
Successfully defended a real estate law firm being sued for malpractice. Our client represented the buyer of a golf course property. On the day before the deal was to close, the acquirer of the golf course told our client that, as part of the transaction, they had negotiated an additional $250,000 note which was to be secured by a mortgage on a separate vacant lot in Frankfort, Illinois. It soon became apparent that the signatures necessary for the mortgage on the $250,000 note
mortgage could not be procured in time for the closing. Our client proceeded with the closing of the transaction after being given assurances that proper signatures on the $250,000 mortgage would be provided soon after the closing. Our client followed up after the closing, but was unable to procure the necessary signatures
record the $250,000 mortgage. The property that was subject to the $250,000 mortgage was eventually sold pursuant to a tax sale
the buyer of the golf course was unable to collect on the $250,000 note
mortgage. The buyer then sued our client, seeking $1 million relating to lost profits associated with the property
other damages. The jury in the malpractice case returned a verdict awarding damages to the plaintiff of less than $1200. (2013)
In re the Estate of O'Malley Case No. 09 P 1884. Jury trial finding the decedent's will
trust was invalid as it was made as a result of the undue influence of one of the decedent's children. (2012)
Oak Brook Bank v. Crowley Barrett & Karaba, Case No. 04 L 1249 Circuit Court of Cook County, Law Division. Two week jury trial. Defended a real estate law firm in this legal malpractice action where the lender sued its lawyers after a construction loan went sour. The plaintiff sought $17 million in damages
dem
ed the policy limits of $5 million for settlement. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty against all defendants. (2010). The case is on appeal.
John Deere & Co., Funk Manufacturing Co. v. Ohio Gear, a South Carolina Corp.
Regal-Beloit, a Wisconsin Corp.
Court No. 02-4011 (USDC Peoria, IL). One week jury trial on the issue of damages following summary judgment on liability in the U.S. District Court in Peoria, Illinois. Defended a supplier to John Deere who was being sued to recover $4.8 million for the costs of a John Deere product recall
replacement of defective parts. (2010). The case is on appeal.
Valley Air Service, Inc. v. Southaire, Inc., Case No. 06 C 0782 (N.D. Ill.). Two week jury trial. Defended an airplane dealer against fraud
breach of contract claims alleging that Cessna aircraft sold
used in charter operations was defective. The plaintiff dem
ed $4.3 million immediately before trial. Jury returned a verdict of not guilty on fraud count
$40,696 on breach of contract count. (2009). The case is on appeal.
Victory Energy Operations LLC v. Connelly Roberts & McGivney, Case No. 02 L 342, Circuit Court of Cook County, Law Division. Three week jury trial. Defended a law firm in this legal malpractice action regarding the formation of a business
litigation following the formation. The dem
was $8.2 million. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty on behalf of all defendants. (2008). This verdict was affirmed on appeal.
Kramer v. Schiller, DuCanto
Fleck. Jury trial in the Circuit Court of Cook County which resulted in a directed verdict in favor of the defendants at the close of plaintiff's case (2011).
Unilever United States Inc. v. L
au Omahana Tucker & Progar, LLC, Case No. 02 L 12323, Circuit Court of Cook County, Law Division. In a two-week jury trial, defended a defense firm in this legal malpractice action. Negligence was admitted while causation contested. The plaintiff sought $2.5 million. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $798,000. The trial court entered judgment notwithst
ing the verdict in favor of the defendant. (2006).
Citizens Financial Services FSB v. David M. Richmond, William H. Metz, William H. Metz & Associates, Inc., Case No. 00 L 13629, Circuit Court of Cook County, Law Division. After six days of plaintiff's case before a jury, the court entered a directed verdict. Defended an appraiser who was sued by the bank claiming that the property was over-valued at the time a loan
mortgage was placed. (2005). Affirmed on appeal.
