United States Gypsum Co. v. Indiana Gas Co
350 F.3D 623 (7TH CIR. 2003)
On behalf of a major producer of wallboard and a direct consumer of natural gas from an Indiana utility, we obtained a reversal of the trial court’s order dismissing our antitrust action. The case was later settled.
An immigrant family started an ethnic food production and distribution business in Illinois. Over the next 20 years, the family worked together and grew the business into a national operation. However, when it came time to pass the business along to the next generation, the family encountered a disagreement over ownership rights. King & Jones were retained by the minority shareholders to prove and enforce their stake in the company.
King & Jones entered into a creatively structured fee agreement that allowed them to launch a relentless investigation involving the retention of top-notch experts in various fields. The investigation not only proved the minority shareholders’ rights, but also showed those rights had been consistently violated over the life cycle of the venture. Ultimately, King & Jones strategies prevailed, and they were able to resolve the case in favor of their clients without involving the family in protracted litigation.
“This case was extremely difficult at every turn. We were representing a family with limited resources, who had valid claims for very significant sums of money. But, we were able to create a fee structure that allowed us to level the playing field against the more powerful and well-funded majority shareholders. Once they saw they could not out spend, or out strategize us, it was just a matter of how much they owed our clients and when they would pay.”
-Peter King, Founding Partner of King & Jones
We have had many very successful settlements that we are required to keep confidential by the terms of settlement agreements. Many of those cases have settled for seven to eight figures. One of these was a books and records case against a hedge fund general partner who refused to turn over basic accounting information so our clients could value their interests. The case involved two lawsuits, one in Chicago and one in Delaware. We successfully litigated the case under Delaware law, obtained the records and forced a buyout of our clients’ interests at a significant multiple of their investment.
Appleton v. Appleton
We successfully represented a Personal Representative of an Estate in a breach of fiduciary duty case. Our client was being sued for allegedly mishandling her father’s significant complicated Estate. The damages sought were in excess of $30,000,000. After years of discovery and the retention of various experts, the Trial Court granted our motion for summary judgment.
Appleton v. Florida State
We represented a philanthropist who donated over $30,000,000 to Florida State University in the 1980s, in the form of an art museum, works of art and cash in exchange for a promise to care for the Museum in perpetuity. The University breached its promise to care for the Museum. The trial Court granted our motion for injunctive relief. The case was tried in Ocala, Florida. The case later settled.
Continental Resources, Inc., v. P&P Industries, LLC
2018 N.D. 11, 906 N.W. 2D 105
In North Dakota, we fought for an oil services company that was being denied payments by a large oil company. The North Dakota Supreme Court ordered this breach of contract dispute to be retried after it accepted our arguments that the jury instructions were flawed. The case was tried before a jury in Williston, North Dakota.
Pattullo Banks v. City of Park Ridge
2014 IL APP (1ST) 132856
We obtained a reversal of the trial’s court’s summary judgment ruling against our client, who was severely injured in a pedestrian accident. The appeal involved issues of municipal tort immunity.
DeGeer v. Gillis
842 F.SUPP.2D 1055 (N.D. ILL. 2012)
In another case representing a minority partner, a partner in a consulting firm alleged he was being squeezed out by his majority partners. After defeating the majority partners’ summary judgment motions and obtaining summary judgment on the majority partners’ counterclaim, the case successfully resolved for a payment of all amounts due our client.
First Merit Realty Services, Inc., v. Amberly Square Apartments, L.P.
869 N.E. 2D 394 (ILL. APP. 2007)
We successfully appealed an arbitration award against our clients. We convinced the appellate court that the arbitrators exceeded their authority by reforming a contract and ignoring the plain language in the parties’ contract.
Village of Lisle v.Village of Woodridge
548 N.E.2D 1337 (ILL. APP. 1989)
We have represented real estate developers in various disputes over the years. We successfully represented a real estate developer in this case who was caught in a boundary line dispute between two municipalities, which dealt with the issue of a municipality’s power to annex property. The Illinois appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
Disciplined Investment Advisors, Inc v. Schweihs
650 N.E.2D 578 (ILL. APP. 1995)
In this breach of fiduciary duty case, we represented a minority shareholder in a squeeze-out action. We fought two large law firms for seven years to protect our client’s rights. This appeal involved the chancery court’s power to stay the matter pending the appeal of a divorce court’s order requiring the shareholder to accept a settlement offer. The case involved analyzing the value of the minority shareholder’s interest. The matter later settled.
Joslyn Manufacturing Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.
23 F.3D 1212 (7TH CIR. 1994)
In a series of insurance coverage actions, we represented a policy holder in its attempts to recover the costs of environmental cleanups. We helped our client recover tens of millions in clean-up costs through actions filed in several states.
Sobel v. Franks
633 N.E.2D 820 (ILL. APP. 1994)
The owner of an insurance brokerage firm turned to us when one of his agents solicited clients while still acting for the agency. In this breach of fiduciary duty case, the court granted our motion for directed verdict during a jury trial. The court agreed that the insurance agency’s former broker breached his fiduciary duty to the agency by soliciting clients for himself prior to leaving the agency. The Court held the broker forfeited his commissions earned during the period of the breach. The Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed.
Midwest Gas Services v.Indiana Gas Co.
317 F.3D 703 (7TH CIR. 2002)
In an another David v. Goliath case, we obtained a reversal of the district court judge’s dismissal of our client’s antitrust action against a major Indiana utility. Our clients operated a natural gas storage field and a related marketing affiliate.
LID Associates v.Dolan
756 N.E.2D 866 (ILL. APP. 2001)
In this breach of fiduciary duty case, we represented a group of limited partner investors who we alleged were being mistreated by their general partner. A jury awarded our limited partner clients over $18,000,000 in damages. The trial court then awarded $6.5 million in equitable prejudgment interest. The Appellate Court reversed the award on various grounds and ordered a retrial. The case settled prior to the second trial.
Heritage Commons Partners v. Village of Summit
935 F.2D 1489 (7TH CIR. 1991)
In this breach of contract case, we prevailed before a federal court jury on behalf of a real estate developer who claimed that his contract to develop affordable housing had been breached by the Village. The Village wanted to back out of the parties’ agreement when the development became a political issue. The jury assessed damages of $1,000,000. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
545 N.E.2D 304 (ILL. APP. 1989)
Breach of fiduciary duty litigation has been a staple of our practice for decades. We represented a group of limited partners in a fight with their general partners involving a cable TV deal. The trial court ruled against us. We prevailed on appeal in this partnership dispute where the general partner, Charles Dolan, argued he had broad discretion in making cash distributions to his limited partners. In this breach of fiduciary duty case, the appellate court held that notwithstanding the partnership agreement’s broad discretionary language, a general partner could not use his power to squeeze his limited partners out of the partnership. The Appellate Court of Illinois required the general partner fiduciary to carry the burden of proof and present evidence that his conduct was fair.