Cherney v. Soldinger
Illinois Appellate Court
702 N.E.2d 231 (1998)
- Written by Jody Stuart, JD
Facts
Jerry Cherney and Robert Gainsberg (collectively, the directors) (plaintiffs) were shareholders, officers, and directors of two corporations. Until 1993, Burton Cherney was also an officer and director of the corporations. Larry Soldinger (defendant) performed accounting services for the corporations. In 1985 the directors discovered that Burton had obtained $63,000 in excess advance payments from the corporations. The directors filed a claim in chancery court against Burton for breach of fiduciary duty, alleging that Burton had drawn salary and advances exceeding his share. The directors and Burton settled their dispute and entered into an unconditional release. Under the release, the directors unconditionally released Burton from any causes of action relating to any matter occurring prior to the date of the release. The release did not contain any reservation of rights with respect to claims against Soldinger or against third parties in general. Subsequently, the directors brought an action in circuit court against Soldinger, alleging that Soldinger breached his fiduciary duty in failing to advise the directors that Burton had been receiving excess salary and compensation. Soldinger moved for summary judgment, arguing that the directors’ release of Burton, with respect to the same monetary loss that was the subject of the complaint against Soldinger, also released Soldinger. The circuit court denied Soldinger’s motion for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hourihane, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.