Owner of Economic Interest in LLC Lacks Standing to Sue for Accounting and Breach of Fiduciary Duty

What is the difference between an ownership interest and an economic interest in a limited liability company? The Illinois First District Appellate Court recently confronted this exact question and provided a useful guide for understanding the differences and most importantly the practical effects of each form of interest.

The case arose after the plaintiff, Mary Doherty, purchased the interest of Grayslake Investments LLC in Country Faire Conversion LLC, a real estate development company, at a UCC sale. Doherty was the wife of one of the members of Grayslake. The Private Bank and Trust Company owned the interest of Grayslake after the bank foreclosed on a loan to Grayslake. Following the plaintiff’s purchase, Country Faire sold its sole asset for a profit of more than $4 million.

After Country Faire’s manager refused to distribute any of the profits to Doherty, she filed suit seeking (i) a declaration that she was a member of Country Faire, (ii) a right to inspect Country Faire’s books, (iii) a 25% distribution of the profits of the sale because Grayslake had made a 25% capital contribution to Country Faire, (iv) an accounting, and (v) a finding that Country Faire’s manager had breached his fiduciary duty to her as a member of Country Faire.

The case proceeded to summary judgment where the trial court entered a pair of summary judgment orders. The first order concluded that Doherty owned an economic interest in Country Faire’s profits and losses and not a membership interest because Private Bank had not followed the necessary procedures to become a member of Country Faire and Doherty had only purchased the bank’s interest, meaning she took whatever interest the bank had and nothing more. The second summary judgment order held that Doherty did not have a right to inspect Country Faire’s books and could not sustain a claim for an accounting or breach of fiduciary duty because she was not a member of Country Faire.

After a bench trial, the trial court found that Doherty, as holder of an economic interest, was entitled to a 13.75% interest in the proceeds of the sale or $600,477.42, after deducting Country Faire’s attorney’s fees and costs. Doherty appealed each of the trial court’s findings. On appeal, the First District Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s findings.

The Court examined the nature of the interest purchased by Doherty at the UCC sale. Doherty purchased the interest owned by the bank. After reviewing the loan documents which were secured by Grayslake’s interest in Country Faire and the applicable provisions of the Illinois Limited Liability Company Act, 805 ILCS 180/1 et seq., the Court determined that the bank never became a member of Country Faire and as a result only owned an economic interest in Grayslake’s share of Country Faire’s profits. As the Court explained, Section 30-10 of the Illinois LLC Act permits the owner of an economic or distributional interest in an LLC to become a member in accordance with the requirements of the LLC’s operating agreement or with the unanimous consent of the LLC’s other members. Country Faire’s amended operating agreement mirrored the Illinois LLC Act in that it required unanimous consent of the members to make the owner of an economic interest a member of the LLC. The bank did not seek unanimous consent of Country Faire’s members to be made a member. Consequently, Doherty’s purchase of the bank’s interest did not render her a member.

This finding doomed the plaintiff’s remaining claims. As the Court explained, Section 30-5 of the Illinois LLC Act provides that owning a distributional interest does not entitle the owner to exercise the rights of a member. These rights, under Section 15-10 of the Illinois LLC Act, include the right to sustain claims against the LLC and its manager(s). Because Doherty was only the owner of an economic interest, she lacked standing to assert claims for an accounting, breach of fiduciary duty, and to inspect Country Faire’s books and records.

The Court’s full opinion is available online here.

Our Chicago breach of fiduciary duty and business litigation attorneys have defended and prosecuted minority oppression, business divorce, stolen corporate opportunity and breach of fiduciary duty lawsuits for more than three decades.

Super Lawyers named Chicago and Elmhurst business litigation and fiduciary duty attorneys Peter Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle a Super Lawyer and Rising Star respectively in the Categories of Business Litigation, Class Action, and Consumer Rights Litigation. Lubin Austermuehle’s Oak Brook and Chicago shareholder oppression lawyers have over thirty-five years of experience litigating complex class action, consumer rights, and business and commercial litigation disputes. We handle emergency business lawsuits involving injunctions, and TROS, covenants not to compete, franchise, distributor and dealer wrongful termination and trade secret lawsuits in addition to disputes involving breaches of fiduciary duty. In every case, our goal is to resolve disputes as quickly and successfully as possible, helping business clients protect their investments and get back to business as usual. From offices near Wilmette and Elgin, we serve clients throughout Illinois and the Midwest.

If you’d like to discuss how the experienced Illinois breach of fiduciary duty attorneys at Lubin Austermuehle can help, we would like to hear from you. To set up a consultation with one of our Chicago class action attorneys and Chicago business trial lawyers, please call us toll-free at (833) 306-4933 or contact us online.

Client Reviews
★★★★★
"I was referred to Peter Lubin from someone in the car business to handle a law suit. From the moment I made the appointment Peter and his staff were outstanding. This wasn't an easy case, most lawyers had turned me down. However, Peter took the time to meet with me and review everything. He took on the case, and constantly communicated with me about updates and case information. We beat this non-compete agreement case in record time. I would use him again and recommend him to my closest family and friends. 5 stars is not enough to thank him for his service." Sebastian R.
★★★★★
"I worked on two occasions with Peter Lubin and his staff. They took their time with me and discussed each and every item in detail. The group makes you feel like you are part of the family and not just another hourly charge. I recommend Peter to anyone who asks me for a referral. If you are looking for a top notch attorney at a reasonable rate, look no further than Lubin Austermuehle." Kurt A.
★★★★★
"Excellent law firm. My case was a complicated arbitration dispute from another state. Was handled with utmost professionalism and decency. Mr. Peter Lubin was able to successfully resolve the case on my behalf and got me a very favorable settlement. Would recommend to anyone looking for a serious law firm. Great staff and great lawyers!" Albey L.
★★★★★
"I have known Peter Lubin for over 30 years. He has represented me on occasion with sound legal advice. He is a shrewd and tough negotiator leading to positive outcomes and averting prolonged legal hassles in court. He comes from a family with a legal pedigree and deep roots in Chicago's top legal community. You want him on your case. You need him on your opponents case. He won't stop fighting until he wins." Christopher G.
★★★★★
"Peter and his team helped us with an auto fraud case. They communicated well (timely and very responsive), investigated deeply, and negotiated a very good settlement. We were able to resolve our significant issue without a large burden and in a manner that allowed for us to come out ahead. I'd recommend Peter and his team strongly!" R.J. Callahan
★★★★★
"Peter was really nice and helpful when I came to him with an initial question about a non-compete. Would definitely reach out again, recommended to everyone." Johannes B.