United States Seventh Circuit

In a suit to collect a judgment obtained against a defunct company by suing the holding company and several of its officers, summary judgment for defendants is vacated and remanded for further explanation with regard to one defendant and affirmed as to the remaining defendants where: 1) plaintiff failed to prove the factors of its veil-piercing claims; 2) plaintiff could not maintain its fraudulent transfer claim against defendant based on a theory that defendant was the defaulting company's alter ego since plaintiff cannot pierce the corporate veil or prove that any transfers were in fact fraudulent; 3) a claim of breach of fiduciary duty was waived; 4) sua sponte summary judgment for defendants is vacated and remanded for further explanation; 5) the court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed sanctions on plaintiffs; and 6) a memorandum inadvertently sent to plaintiffs during discovery is covered by the attorney client privilege.

Appellate Information

• Argued 11/09/2007
• Decided 06/03/2008
• Published 06/03/2008

Judges

• CUDAHY, Circuit Judge., Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and CUDAHY and RIPPLE, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Seventh Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Anthony S. Divincenzo, Divincenzo Schoenfield Swartzman, Chicago, IL, Sheldon M. Lustig, Lustig & Associates, Skokie, IL, Percy L. Isgitt (argued), Isgitt Dees & Turcotte, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Donald B. Garvey, Oakbrook Terrace, IL, Richard C. McSwain, Curry, McSwain & Associates, San Antonio, TX, John S. Delnero (argued), Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, Chicago, IL, Donna B. Wallace, Baldi & Associates, Chicago, IL, Christina M. Berish, David W. Ellis, Glen T. Keysor, Thompson Coburn Fagel Haber, Chicago, IL, William K. Carter, Clark Hill, Chicago, IL, for Defendants-Appellees.