Publications

Section Newsletter Articles From J. Matthew Pfeiffer

Unsettling ruling on settlement agreement: Common provision declared unenforceable as penalty By J. Matthew Pfeiffer Civil Practice and Procedure, October 2008 A recent opinion from the Second District of the Appellate Court of Illinois holds that a clause in a settlement agreement providing for an acceleration of the amount due in the event of a breach thereof without any express reasonable basis for such acceleration constitutes a penalty and, therefore, is unenforceable.
What’s in a name? It depends on whether you are seeking Rule 137 sanctions By J. Matthew Pfeiffer Civil Practice and Procedure, May 2008 Last year, the Second District of the Appellate Court of Illinois joined other Illinois appellate districts in deciding that while courts may sanction a person who signed a court paper, a represented party, or both pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137, no authority exists within that rule for courts to sanction a law firm.
Caveat emptor: Your non-Illinois purchase might mean no Illinois jurisdiction By J. Matthew Pfeiffer Civil Practice and Procedure, June 2007 A recent opinion from the Second District of the Appellate Court of Illinois puts Illinois residents on notice to be careful when it comes to transacting business with non-Illinois companies.
Pay[ment] attention: a lesson in avoiding unintended accord and satisfaction By J. Matthew Pfeiffer Civil Practice and Procedure, May 2007 A fairly recent decision from the First District of the Appellate Court of Illinois will likely have corporate office managers, accounts receivable employees, and the like, double-checking each payment and correspondence received from their customers to make sure the fate that met the plaintiff in MKL Pre-Press Electronics/MKL Computer Media Supplies, Inc. v. La Crosse Litho Supply, LLC, 361 Ill.App.3d 872, 840 N.E.2d 687 (1st Dist. 2005), does not befall them.
Case comments By J. Matthew Pfeiffer and Lessa J. Bauer Business and Securities Law, September 2003 Whether a creditor may pierce the veil of a subsidiary corporation in a separate civil action to hold its parent liable for an unpaid judgment debt based on the subsidiary's failure to follow the standards expected of a corporation to be treated as such an entity.
Case comments By J. Matthew Pfeiffer Business and Securities Law, June 2003 Whether corporate officers who conduct purported corporate business during a period when the corporation has been dissolved might not be absolved of personal liability during that period of dissolution, even if those officers were unaware of the dissolution.

Spot an error in your article? Contact Sara Anderson at sanderson@isba.org. For information on obtaining a copy of an article,visit the ISBA Newsletters page.

Select a Different Author