Firm News

Rock Fusco & Connelly successfully defends municipality against claims of sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge.

On behalf of one of its municipal clients, the attorneys from Rock Fusco & Connelly, LLC defeated a lawsuit filed against it claiming sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge. On May 16, 2013, following a three-day bench trial, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entered judgment in favor of the municipality brought by a former employee who alleged that she was sexually harassed by her supervisor and, after reporting the claim, was retaliated against by her ...

Continue Reading →
0

Rock Fusco & Connelly secures a resolution to a putative class action matter pending in the federal district court with a zero net financial commitment from the firm’s client.

On behalf of one of the nation’s largest debt collection agencies, the attorneys at Rock Fusco & Connelly, LLC were able to secure a resolution to a putative class action matter pending in the federal district court with a zero net financial commitment from the firm’s client.  The alleged class value was in excess of $65,000,000.00.  In the case, the putative class representative asserted claims under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act and the Telephone Consumer Protections Act arising out ...

Continue Reading →
0

The Slippery Slope of Indemnification Provisions in Construction Contracts

For individuals and contractors conducting business within the construction arena, it is critical to recognize and understand Illinois courts’ interpretation and application of indemnification and hold harmless clauses contained within comprehensive general liability insurance policies commonly implemented in construction settings. Specifically, while it is advantageous for a contractor to limit the extent of its liability exposure, such limitations generally held within indemnity or hold harmless agreements will not be enforced to the extent that they seek to extinguish the indemnitee’s ...

Continue Reading →
0

Restricted Access: What Employers Need to Know About the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act was passed by the United States Congress in 1986, and was intended to help reduce the hacking of computer systems as well as to address federal computer related offenses.  The Act, as it was implemented, was intended to govern cases with a compelling federal interest, where computers of the federal government or certain financial institutions were involved, or the crime itself was interstate in nature.

The CFAA prohibits (1) computer trespassing (hacking) in a government ...

Continue Reading →
0

Choosing a Proper Business Form for Your Small Business: Limited Liability Companies vs. S Corporations

As a business owner, limited liability should be one of your primary concerns. With limited liability, an owner’s personal assets are safe from the suits against the business entity. The advantage of limited liability is a clear reduction of risk on the part of an owner or shareholder. Historically, limited liability was available only in the corporate form. Along with limited liability, the corporate form also brought the oft dreaded prospect of double taxation—the imposition of tax once at ...

Continue Reading →
0

“ABODE SERVICE” CONSTITUTES “PERSONAL SERVICE” UNDER THE ILLINOIS MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE LAW

In Metrobank v. Cannatello, 2012 IL App (1st) 110529 (January 9, 2012), the First District Appellate Court adopted a definitive standard for “personal service” in foreclosure cases.  Section 5/15-1508(e)[1] of the Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law (“IMFL”) provides that a personal deficiency judgment may be entered for any balance of money that may be found due to the plaintiff, over and above the proceeds of the judicial sale, only in cases where there was personal service on the persons ...

Continue Reading →
0

Rock Fusco & Connelly successfully defends a civil litigation in Ramirez v. City of Chicago, 05 C 317

Section 1983 action based upon a series of police encounters between the Ramirez family and City of Chicago police officers.  Specifically, the complaint alleged that the multiple interactions over a three year period of time between Plaintiffs and officers assigned to the 8th District, Area One Detective Division and the Special Operations Section were a result of a conspiracy by the officers to retaliate against Plaintiffs through numerous incidents of false arrest, unreasonable searches of their property, vehicles and persons, ...

Continue Reading →
0

No Union, No Problem?

The National Labor Relations Board’s recent efforts to increase awareness of protected concerted activity raise the potential threat of non-union employees being afforded union protections under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.

On June 18, 2012, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) launched a new website designed to increase public awareness of the protections afforded to concerted activities regardless of whether a union exists.  Under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, the right allows for nonunionized employees ...

Continue Reading →
0

Dodd-Frank Two Years Later

The signing of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act promised sweeping changes and more protection for consumers.  Almost two years later has consumer litigation boomed as was expected?

After the signing of Dodd-Frank into law, many financial companies feared that the sweeping changes it promised would alter the way they did business forever.  Their worst fear was an upswing in private litigation.  This fear is warranted as corporations should be wary; Dodd-Frank paves the way for a potential ...

Continue Reading →
0

Jed Capital and the Expanding Investment Contract

In Shirley v. Jed Capital, LLC[1], the district court decided that an ownership interest in an LLC can qualify as an investment contract. This decision may signify that an increasing number of transactions will become reviewable under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1933.

In Jed Capital, Christopher Shirley filed a suit against Jed Capital, LLC and its manager, John Harada, alleging a violation of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1933. The plaintiff owned 20% of Jed Capital, LLC. The ...

Continue Reading →
0