Tag: freelance writer

Corporate Officer Can Owe Fiduciary Duty to Company Creditors – IL Court in ‘Deep Cut’* Case

Five years in, Workforce Solutions v. Urban Services of America, Inc., 2012 IL App (1st) 111410 is still a go-to authority for its penetrating analysis of the scope of post-judgment proceedings, the nature of fraudulent transfer claims and the legal relationship between corporate officers and creditors.

Here are some key questions and answers from the case:

Q1: Is a judgment creditor seeking a turnover order from a third party on theory of fraudulent transfer (from debtor to third party) entitled to an evidentiary hearing?

A1: YES

Q2: Does the denial of a turnover motion preclude that creditor from filing a direct action against the same turnover defendants?

A2: NO.

Q3: Can officer of a debtor corporation owe fiduciary duty to creditor of that corporation?

Q3: YES.

The plaintiff supplier of contract employees sued the defendant in 2006 for breach of contract.  After securing a $1M default judgment in 2008, the plaintiff instituted supplementary proceedings to collect on the judgment.  Through post-judgment discovery, plaintiff learned that the defendant and its officers were operating through a labyrinthine network of related business entities.  In 2010, plaintiff sought a turnover order from several third parties based on a 2008 transfer of assets and a 2005 loan from the debtor to third parties.

That same year (2010), plaintiff filed a new lawsuit against some of the entities that were targets of the motion for turnover order in the 2006 case.

In the 2006 case, the court denied the turnover motion on the basis that the plaintiff failed to establish that the turnover defendants received fraudulent transfers from the judgment debtor and that the fraudulent transfer claims were time-barred.  740 ILCS 160/10 (UFTA claims are subject to four-year limitations period.)

The court in the 2010 case dismissed plaintiff’s claims based on the denial of plaintiff’s turnover motion in the 2006 case.  Plaintiff appealed from both lawsuits.

Section 2-1402 of the Code permits a judgment creditor to initiate supplementary proceedings against a judgment debtor to discover assets of the debtor and apply those assets to satisfy an unpaid judgment

A court has broad powers to compel the application of discovered assets to satisfy a judgment and it can compel a third party to turn over assets belonging to the judgment debtor.

The only relevant inquiries in a supplementary proceeding are (1) whether the judgment debtor is holding assets that should be applied to the judgment; and (2) whether a third-party citation respondent is holding assets of the judgment debtor that should be applied to the judgment. .  If the facts are right, an UFTA claim can be brought in supplementary proceedings

But where there are competing claimants to the same asset pool, they are entitled to a trial on the merits (e.g. an evidentiary hearing) unless they waive the trial and stipulate to have the turnover motion decided on the written papers.

Here, the court disposed of the turnover motion on the bare arguments of counsel.  It didn’t conduct the necessary evidentiary hearing and therefore committed reversible error when it denied the motion.

The defendants moved to dismiss the 2010 case – which alleged breach of fiduciary duty, among other things – on the basis of collateral estoppel.  They argued that the denial of the plaintiff’s motion for turnover order in the 2006 precluded them from pursuing the same claims in the 2010 case.  Collateral estoppel or “issue preclusion” applies where: (1) an issue previously adjudicated is identical to the one in a pending action; (2) a final judgment on the merits exists in the prior case; and (3) the prior action involved the same parties or their privies.

The appeals court found that there was no final judgment on the merits in the 2006 case.  Since the trial court failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing, the denial of the turnover order wasn’t final.  Since there was no final judgment in the 2006 suit, the plaintiff was not barred from filing its breach of fiduciary duty and alter ego claims in 2010.

The Court also reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claims against the corporate debtor’s promoters.  To state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant owes him a fiduciary duty; that the defendant breached that duty; and that he was injured as a proximate result of that breach.

The promoter defendants argued plaintiff lacked standing to sue since Illinois doesn’t saddle corporate officers with fiduciary duties to a corporation’s creditors. The Court allowed that as a general rule, corporate officers only owe fiduciary duties to the corporation and shareholders.  “However, under certain circumstances, an officer may owe a fiduciary duty to the corporation’s creditors….specifically, once a corporation becomes insolvent, an officer’s fiduciary duty extends to the creditors of the corporation because, from the moment insolvency arises, the corporation’s assets are deemed to be held in trust for the benefit of its creditors.

Since plaintiff alleged the corporate defendant was insolvent, that the individual defendants owed plaintiff a duty to manage the corporate assets, and a breach of that duty by making fraudulent transfers to various third parties, this was enough to sustain its breach of fiduciary duty claim against defendants’ motion to dismiss. (¶¶ 83-84).

Afterwords:

1/ A motion for turnover order, if contested, merits a full trial with live witnesses and exhibits.

2/ A denial of a motion for a turnover order won’t have preclusive collateral estoppel effect on a later fraudulent transfer action where there was no evidentiary hearing to decide the turnover motion

3/ Once a corporation becomes insolvent, an officer’s fiduciary duty extends to creditors of the corporation.  This is because once insolvency occurs, corporate assets are deemed held in trust for the benefit of creditors.

* In the rock radio realm, a deep cut denotes an obscure song – a “B-side” – from a popular recording artist or album.  Examples: “Walter’s Walk” (Zeppelin); “Children of the Sea” (Sabbath); “By-Tor And the Snow Dog” (Rush).

Default “Orders”, Default “Judgments” And “DWPs” – Illinois Quick Hits

Jackson v. Hooker, 397 Ill.App.3d 614 (1st Dist. 2010) is dated but relevant for its interesting procedural history and nuanced discussion of appellate procedure, the difference between default orders and default (money) judgments and the appropriate time to vacate a dismissal for want of prosecution (“DWP”).

After obtaining an order of default against the defendant, the plaintiff didn’t show up for the prove-up hearing and the case was dismissed for want of prosecution (“DWP’d”). Four months later, the plaintiff moved to vacate the DWP.  The trial court denied the motion and granted the plaintiff leave to file a Section 2-1401 petition to vacate the DWP. Plaintiff did so and the court granted the motion and reinstated the default.

Plaintiff later obtained a $700,000 money judgment after a prove-up hearing. This time, the defendant moved to vacate the judgment. The trial court denied the motion for failure to comply with Section 2-1401. Defendant appealed.

Reversing the default judgment, the trial court first focused on the nature of DWPs and when and how to vacate them.  The guideposts:

– When a case is DWPd, a plaintiff has one year (or within the remaining limitations period) to file a new action under Code Section 13-217 (735 ILCS 5/13-217);

– A DWP order only becomes final and appealable when the one-year refiling period lapses.  Until that one-year time period expires, the DWP isn’t a final order and can’t be appealed;

– In addition, the one-year period doesn’t start running until after a court rules on a motion to vacate a DWP.  (For example: if a case is DWP’d on January 1, 2015, the plaintiff has through January 1, 2016 to refile the case.  If the DWP is vacated on June 1, 2015, the plaintiff has one year – through June 1, 2016 – to refile.);

– Code Section 2-1301 (735 ILCS 5/2-1301) allows a court to set aside any (non-final) default order at any time or to set aside a final judgment within 30 days of the judgment’s entry;

– After 30 days from the judgment date, the more stringent Section 2-1401 standards apply (735 ILCS 5/2-1401).  Section 2-1401 applies to judgments more than 30 days but less than 2 years old;

– A default order (an “order of default”) is simply a non-final order that prevents the defaulting party from making additional defenses but doesn’t determine any rights or remedies;

– A default judgment is the specific act that ends the litigation and finally decides the dispute;

– A default judgment has two elements: (1) a finding of the issues for the plaintiff; and (2) an assessment of damages.

(¶¶ 4-9)

Here, Since the one-year refiling period hadn’t expired when the plaintiff sought to vacate the DWP, the motion was timely.  As a result, Section 2-1401 didn’t apply and the plaintiff didn’t have to show due diligence or a meritorious defense.

The court also held that Section 2-1401 also didn’t apply to the defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment in favor of the plaintiff. A default order entered in October 2007 but the default judgment didn’t enter until June 2008.  Since the defendant filed his motion to vacate the default judgment within 30 days of June 2008, the more relaxed standards of Section 2-1301 applied.  ¶ 9; also see (here)

Take-aways:

The case contains some good procedural reminders.  Specifically, an order of default differs qualitatively from a default judgment.  The latter assigns a dollar value to the plaintiff while a default order doesn’t award any monetary relief.

The case also stresses that a dismissal for want of prosecution isn’t a final (and therefore appealable) order until one-year elapses from (a) the date of the dismissal or (b) from the date a motion to vacate the DWP is denied.

Lastly, this case reaffirms the key differences between motions to vacate judgments before (Section 2-1301 motions) and after (Section 2-1401 motions) 30 days.

 

 

Fraud In the Inducement and Fraudulent Concealment – Illinois Primer

hoodwinkIn Thorne v. Riggs, 2013 IL App (3d) 120244-U (September 3, 2013), the trial court rescinded a real estate contract and the Third District affirmed.  In doing so, the Court examined Illinois fraud in the inducement and fraudulent concealment law and discussed the “special relationship” fiduciary duty rule.

Facts: Plaintiffs sued two LLC members alleging they fraudulently induced them into investing in a realty development.  Plaintiffs claimed the defendants misstated the deal’s status, timing, and whether an easement existed on the property. After trial, the trial court rescinded the contract and ordered defendants to return plaintiffs’ $1.2M investment.

Holding: Appellate Court affirmed trial court.

Reasoning/rules:  Plaintiffs’ fraud claims were premised on defendants’ misrepresentations and concealing material information about the project.

To show fraud in the inducement,  a plaintiff  must show (1) a defendant’s false statement of material fact, (2) known or believed to be false by the defendant; (3) intended to induce the plaintiff to act; (4) plaintiff acted in reliance on the truth of the representation; and (5) resulting damage.  ¶ 45.

Fraudulent concealment requires a showing that: (1) defendant concealed a material fact under circumstances creating a duty to speak; (2) defendant intended to induce a false belief; (3) plaintiff couldn’t have discovered truth through reasonable inquiry or inspection (or was prevented from doing so); (4) justifiable reliance by the plaintiff; (5) plaintiff would have acted differently if he was aware of the hidden information; and (6) damages. ¶ 62.

A fraudulent concealment plaintiff must also show a fiduciary relationship between him and the defendant.  Fiduciary relationships can exist (a) as a matter of law; or (b) where there is a special or confidential relationship.  The former (as a matter of law) category includes attorneys and clients, principals and agents and partners in a partnership and joint venturers in a joint venture.  Thorne, ¶ 63.

The “special relationship” fiduciary duty rule applies where one party puts trust and confidence in another who stands in a dominant position in terms of age, education, mental status or business acumen. (¶ 64).

Applying these elements, the Court held that the plaintiffs proved fraud in the inducement and fraudulent concealment at trial.

(1) Misrepresentation/concealment: defendants misrepresented status of the project and failed to alert plaintiffs that part of the property was subject to an easement and repurchase agreement (¶¶ 47-63);

(2) Knowledge of falsity – multiple witnesses testified that defendants knew of storm water issues affecting the parcels for several years but never told plaintiffs (¶¶ 52, 57);

(3) Justifiable reliance: defendants controlled the flow of information from the municipality concerning the project’s status.  Defendants divulged only selective information to plaintiffs concerning governmental requirements necessary to complete the project.  The defendants control of information made it reasonable for plaintiffs to rely on defendants.  (¶ 69, 82-83).

The court rejected defendants argument that the information was public record and therefore prevented a finding of justifiable reliance.  The court stressed that plaintiffs were neophyte investors who relied on defendants’ real estate experience.

Another factor relied on by the Court was the absence of record evidence that the easement or the storm water issues were recorded public documents.  (¶ 82).

(4) Fiduciary Duty: while plaintiffs were highly educated, they were real estate novices compared to defendants and completely relied on defendants’ expertise.  This led the Court to sustain the trial court’s “special relationship” fiduciary duty finding.  The Court also found that since defendants controlled the project information they received from the Municipality, they owed plaintiffs a precontractual fiduciary duty.  (¶ 69);

(5) Inducement – there was no other reason for defendants to represent that there were no impediments to plat approval other than to entice plaintiffs to sign the purchase agreement (¶¶ 73-75);

(6) Injury/Damages – plaintiff paid $1.2M for an investment that was promised not to exceed $550,000.  (¶¶ 85-86).

Take-aways: Both plaintiffs had multiple post-graduate degrees.  Still, the court found that they relied on and were in a vulnerable position compared to the defendants, experienced real estate developers.

Thorne also illustrates that where a defendant monopolizes the flow of a deal’s information from outside sources (i.e. a governmental agency), the plaintiff can establish the justifiable reliance prong of his fraud claim.