Illinois Rockford Corp. v. Kulp

Decision Date03 November 1967
Docket NumberGen. No. 50785
Citation232 N.E.2d 190,88 Ill.App.2d 458
PartiesILLINOIS ROCKFORD CORPORATION, a corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leo KULP, Arthur Reinhold, Ray Jackson and Western Picture Frame Company, acorporation, Defendants-Appellants.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Joseph D. Block, Aaron, Aaron, Schimberg & Hess, Chicago, for appellants.

Lee A. Freeman, McConnell, Freeman, Curtis & McConnell, Chicago, for appellee.

Frank Jacobson, Chicago, for Nathan Cohen, Master-Spec. Commissioner.

BURKE, Justice.

This action was filed for the rescission of a stock sale agreement or, in the alternative, for damages arising out of defendants' allegedly fraudulent misrepresentations which induced plaintiff, through its sole stockholder, William Leeb, to sell to defendant Western Picture Frame Company its 50% Share of the capital stock of the Pullman Couch Company (hereinafter referred to as Pullman) for a grossly inadequate price. The cause was referred to a Master in Chancery (later appointed as a Special Commissioner) who, after extensive hearings, filed a report wherein he recommended a decree denying the prayer for rescission of the transaction and awarding damages to plaintiff in the amount of $112,500 as against all defendants, jointly and severally. The decree entered by the Chancellor approved the report of the Special Commissioner, adopted the findings of fact contained therein, and provided for judgment in favor of plaintiff and against all defendants in the recommended amount, including costs.

Defendants maintain on this appeal that they are not liable for fraud or deceit as a matter of law since the alleged false representations attributed to them were not statements of a present fact or of a past fact, but were merely statements of an intention to do something in the future and, that in any event, plaintiff did not rely upon the statements in the sale of its stock; that the record fails to disclose defendants conspired in the breach of any fiduciary obligation owing to plaintiff with regard to the sale of the stock; and that the damages awarded to plaintiff are grossly excessive for the reason that plaintiff wholly failed to prove its shares of the Pullman stock to have been worth more than the amount actually received for the stock and further, that the award fails to take additional factors into consideration.

Plaintiff maintains on this appeal that defendant Leo Kulp, who owned the other 50% Of the Pullman stock, owed a fiduciary obligation to plaintiff, through Leeb, and was consequently obligated to make full disclosure to Leeb of all details of his negotiations for the sale of the Pullman stock; that the other defendants knew of Kulp's fiduciary position and acted in concert with him in the breach of that fiduciary duty; and that defendants engaged in a conspiracy to defraud plaintiff through deceit and misrepresentation.

The Pullman Couch Company of Chicago, together with its subsidiaries in Mississippi and California (all three of which are involved herein,) were engaged in the manufacture of convertible sofa beds and other upholstered furniture. Pursuant to an agreement entered in September of 1957 between plaintiff and Leo Kulp as owners of 100% Of the Pullman stock, which agreement related to the management of Pullman, Kulp was to be president of Pullman and primarily responsible for the design, production and manufacturing operations. William Leeb, owner of plaintiff's stock, was to be chairman of the Pullman Board, vice-president and treasurer of the companies, and was to be in charge of the sales and finances of the Pullman enterprises. The agreement further provided that Kulp would receive $60,000 for his full time services, that Leeb would receive $40,000 for his services, that each man had the right to elect two of the four-man board of directors, and that the parties would confer with regard to all major company policies.

In January of 1958 Leeb was hospitalized for an illness and upon recovery commenced to spend more of his time in Palm Springs, California. He continued to participate in the affairs of Pullman, keeping himself informed with respect thereto by periodical visits to Chicago, telephone communications and the regular receipt of financial reports and statements. From the inception of the company, Leeb spent little time in Chicago and Kulp, as president, managed and controlled the affairs of Pullman.

From 1958 Pullman experienced substantial operating losses. The decline in the financial condition of the companies became so serious that in the early part of 1959 the companies were unable to meet their liabilities and the possibility of an involuntary bankruptcy was imminent. Leeb came to Chicago from Plam Springs in March of 1959 and he and Kulp engaged in a series of meetings with members of the law firm of Schwartz and Cooper, specialists in matters of bankruptcy, which culminated in a decision that Pullman should file Chapter XI proceedings to effect an arrangement with creditors under the Federal Bankruptcy Act. On April 2, 1959, the Chapter XI proceedings were filed in the Federal District Court in Chicago by all three Pullman companies. Orders were entered by that Court permitting the companies to continue their operations as debtors in possession under supervision of the Court. On April 3rd Leeb returned to Palm Springs.

It was made clear to all parties concerned by the referee in bankruptcy and by Attorney Schwartz that unless a plan of arrangement with creditors of Pullman was promptly forthcoming the Chapter XI proceedings would be converted into straight bankruptcy proceedings involving the liquidation of all the assets and properties of Pullman. Efforts were made by all parties concerned to find persons who would be interested in Pullman and in providing funds to finance an arrangement with creditors. It appears the only interest shown in the purchase of Pullman was that of defendants Jackson and Reinhold, and by a Mr. Hertenstein who offered to purchase all the Pullman stock for $35,000.

Defendant William Ray Jackson resides in Tennessee and is engaged in the furniture manufacturing business in that area. Defendant Arthur Reinhold, a long time business acquaintance of both Leeb and Kulp, is president of the defendant Western Picture Frame Company, a furniture manufacturing company with headquarters in Chicago.

Shortly before the filing of the Chapter XI proceedings Reinhold learned of Pullman's troubles and contacted Leeb in California, offering to purchase Leeb's interest in the companies, but Leeb turned down the offer. Subsequent to the filing of the Chapter XI proceedings, Kulp contacted Leeb in California at the suggestion of the Southwest Texbank, one of Pullman's largest creditors, and offered $25,000 for Leeb's share in Pullman, but Leeb again refused. Lester Reinwald, Leeb's personal attorney for 28 years and also the attorney for Kulp and Pullman, testified as a court's witness that Leeb contacted him in Chicago with regard to Kulp's offer and told Reinwald that he, Leeb, would sell his shares in Pullman for $35,000 on condition he received a certified check therefor immediately. Leeb, however, testified he did not offer his stock for $35,000, but that he contacted Reinwald to determine why Kulp offered him $25,000. On April 21, 1959, Reinhold and his attorney, Harold Perlman of Chicago, met with Kulp and Attorney Reinwald. The financial condition and affairs of Pullman were discussed, and Mr. Reinwald reported to Leeb by letter following the meeting that nothing had come of the conference. The testimony concerning this meeting is that Kulp was asking between $250,000 and $300,000 for his 'working interest' in Pullman and that Leeb wanted $125,000 for his stock in Pullman. Shortly after the meeting Kulp telephoned Leeb in California and advised him to stay away from Chicago because of 'ugly creditor remarks,' and further advised him that he was 'taking care of everything.' Shortly thereafter Leeb telephoned Attorney Schwartz in Chicago who advised Leeb to come to Chicago.

Defendant Jackson, having been previously advised of the Pullman situation by Reinhold, came to Chicago from Tennessee on April 23rd and spent a day with Reinhold at the Pullman plant in Chicago. On April 27th Jackson's accountant, Meyer Winer, came to Chicago to study the Pullman books and records.

In keeping with Mr. Schwartz's recommendation, Leeb returned to Chicago from Palm Springs on Thursday, April 30th; on that date Jackson also returned to Chicago from Tennessee. On April 30th or on the morning of May 1st, Leeb met with Jackson, Winer and Kulp in an office at the Pullman plant at which time Jackson stated he would be willing to pay $50,000 for all the Pullman stock. Leeb and Kulp then stepped out of the room and talked privately. Leeb asked Kulp whether he thought $50,000 was a fair price for their interest in Pullman and Kulp replied that he thought it was a fair price because he had interviewed several other prospective buyers and had gotten nowhere with them. Kulp suggested that the offer be accepted or they might wind up with no deal at all. The two men returned to the office and Leeb said to Jackson, 'O.K., Mr. Jackson, it's a deal.' Jackson stated that he would like to explore the possibilities of a plan of arrangement with the creditors, whose claims against Pullman at that time constituted some $1,300,000, and that he would meet with Leeb the following day. Kulp left the factory and Leeb inquired of Jackson whether Kulp was getting anything over and above the $25,000. Jackson replied, 'No, Kulp is getting $25,000. He is getting exactly the amount you are getting. We don't do business--we wouldn't do business behind your back. We do not do business that way.' Winer confirmed these remarks.

Later that morning, Kulp and Leeb drove to the Standard Club in downtown Chicago to attend a meeting to discuss a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • ABC Trans Nat. Transport, Inc. v. Aeronautics Forwarders, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • October 31, 1980
    ...burden is to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, an individual's participation in the conspiracy. (Illinois Rockford Corp. v. Kulp (1967), 88 Ill.App.2d 458, 232 N.E.2d 190, rev'd on other grounds (1968), 41 Ill.2d 215, 242 N.E.2d 228; Sears v. Weissman (1972), 6 Ill.App.3d 827, 28......
  • Bimba Mfg. Co. v. Starz Cylinder Co.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 10, 1969
    ...Angel Research, 39 Ill.App.2d 419, 188 N.E.2d 500. One who alleges a conspiracy has the burden of proving it. Illinois Rockford Corp. v. Kulp, 88 Ill.App.2d 458, 232 N.E.2d 190, reversed on other grounds, 41 Ill.2d 215, 242 N.E.2d 228. Although a conspiracy may be proved by indirect and cir......
  • Dempsey v. Sternik
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • September 24, 1986
    ...participation in a conspiracy to ruin Gemco. (ABC Trans Nat'l, 46 Ill.Dec. at 196, 413 N.E.2d at 1309; Illinois Rockford Corp. v. Kulp (1967), 88 Ill.App.2d 458, 232 N.E.2d 190, rev's on other grounds (1968), 41 Ill.2d 215, 242 N.E.2d 228.) Such proof can be circumstantial. (ABC Trans Nat'l......
  • Metropolitan Sanitary Dist. of Greater Chicago v. Anthony Pontarelli & Sons, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • September 8, 1972
    ...and we therefore decline to do so, following instead the existing law of this State as reiterated in Illinois Rockford Corp. v. Kulp (1967), 88 Ill.App.2d 458, 472--473, 232 N.E.2d 190, 198, rev'd on other grounds, 41 Ill.2d 215, 242 N.E.2d 228, where the court A misrepresentation relating ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT