Appellant's Brief FILED 10.5.18 (00431492xAF516)

E-FILED
Transaction ID: 1-18-1126

File Date: 10/5/2018 10:10 AM
Thomas D. Palella
No. 1-18-1126 Clerk of the Appellate Court
APPELLATE COURT 1ST DISTRICT
IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
)
ADVANTAGE MARKETING GROUP, LTD., ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook
) County
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
) Case No. 2017 CH 05559
v. )
) Circuit Judge: Neil H. Cohen
)
JAMES P. KEANE, SR., ) Appeal from Orders dated May 1 and 9,
) 2018
Defendant-Appellee. )
)
BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
Kenneth J. Vanko
Clingen Callow & McLean, LLC
2300 Cabot Drive, Suite 500
Lisle, Illinois 60532
(630) 871-2600
vanko@ccmlawyer.com
Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Nature of the Action ......................................................................................................... 1

Statement of The Issues Presented for Review ........................................................... 1
Statement of Jurisdiction ................................................................................................. 2
Statement of Facts ............................................................................................................. 2
Argument ............................................................................................................................ 5
I. Standard of Review .................................................................................................... 5
Weatherman v. Gary-Wheaton Bank of Fox Valley, N.A., 186 Ill. 2d 472 (1999)........... 5-6
II. AMG’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty establishes that the evaluation of
acquisitions, and so The Mail House opportunity itself, were part of
Keane’s agency relationship. .................................................................................... 6
Lawlor v. North American Corp. of Ill., 2012 IL 112530 .................................................... 6
A. In holding that Keane owed AMG no duty, the circuit court failed to
apply corporate opportunity principles and Supreme Court precedent .... 6
Mullaney, Wells & Co. v. Savage, 78 Ill. 2d 534 (1980) .................................................. 6-8
Kerrigan v. Unity Sav. Ass’n, 58 Ill. 2d 20 (1974) ............................................................. 7
Lawlor v. North American Corp. of Ill. 2012 IL 112530 ..................................................... 7
Ray v. Winter, 67 Ill. 2d 296 (1977) .................................................................................... 7
B. The corporate opportunity doctrine’s parameters depend on the scope of
a fiduciary’s agency relationship, not a title. ................................................... 8
Armstrong v. Guigler, 174 Ill. 2d 281 (1996) ..................................................................... 8
Dremco, Inc. v. S. Chapel Hill Gardens, Inc., 274 Ill. App. 3d 534 (1st Dist. 1995) ........ 9
Mullaney, Wells & Co. v. Savage, 78 Ill. 2d 534 (1980) ................................................... 10
Kerrigan v. Unity Sav. Ass’n, 58 Ill. 2d 20 (1974) ........................................................... 10
C. The “preliminary stages” doctrine does not override corporate-
opportunity principles. ...................................................................................... 10
Mullaney, Wells & Co. v. Savage, 78 Ill. 2d 534 (1980) .............................................. 11,13
Dowell v. Bitner, 273 Ill. App. 3d 681 (4th Dist. 1995) .................................................. 11
Veco Corp. v. Babcock, 243 Ill. App. 3d 153 (1st Dist. 1993) .......................................... 11
i
William Lynch Schaller, Disloyalty and Distrust: The Eroding Fiduciary Duties of
Illinois Employees, 3 DePaul Bus. L.J. 1 (Fall/Winter 1990-91)………...….......11
Foodcomm Int’l v. Barry, 328 F.3d 300 (7th Cir. 2003) .............................................. 11,12
LCOR, Inc. v. Murray, No. 97 C 1302, 1997 WL 136278 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 20, 1997) ..... 12
Regal-Beloit Corp. v. Drecoll, 955 F. Supp. 849 (N.D. Ill. 1996)..................................... 13
D. AMG properly alleged that Keane failed to disclose and tender The Mail
House acquisition opportunity. ....................................................................... 14
Mullaney, Wells & Co. v. Savage, 78 Ill. 2d 534 (1980) ................................................... 14
Weatherman v. Gary-Wheaton Bank of Fox Valley, N.A., 186 Ill. 2d 472 (1999)............ 14
III. The factual allegations arising from Keane’s appropriation of The Mail
House opportunity place it within a cognizable tortious interference claim.14
Fellhauer v. City of Geneva, 142 Ill. 2d 495 (1991)........................................................... 15
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 17
Certificate of Compliance .............................................................................................. 19
ii
NATURE OF THE ACTION
This is an appeal from the circuit court’s dismissal of two claims that
Advantage Marketing Group, Ltd. (“AMG”) brought against James P. Keane, Sr.
(“Keane”). In its Amended Complaint at Chancery, AMG alleged Keane was
liable for breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference with prospective
economic advantage arising from his conduct in acquiring a competing business
while still a key AMG employee. (C. 138-51; A8-21).
On May 1, 2018, the circuit court, in a Memorandum and Order, dismissed
both claims under Section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (C. 206-09; A1-4).
The next week, the circuit court entered an Order of Dismissal with prejudice
after AMG represented that it would not seek to amend its pleading any further.
(C. 210; A5). AMG filed its Notice of Appeal on May 31, 2018 and seeks a reversal
of the circuit court’s with-prejudice dismissal of both causes of action in the
Amended Complaint. (C. 211-19; A39-47).
The issues AMG raises in this appeal are on the pleadings alone and seek to
determine whether AMG stated legally and factually sufficient tort claims
against Keane.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
The issues presented for review are
(1) Has AMG stated a proper claim for breach of fiduciary duty against
Keane for his pre-resignation purchase of a direct competitor?
(2) For purposes of its tortious interference claim, did AMG sufficiently plead
that it had a reasonable expectation of acquiring a competing business
1
with which Keane interfered, given Keane’s knowledge of, and
involvement in, evaluating strategic acquisitions for AMG?
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The circuit court entered an Order on May 1, 2018, which dismissed Counts I
and II of the Amended Complaint. (C. 206-09; A1-4). That Order disposed of the
only claims in AMG’s pleading. Then on May 9, 2018, the circuit court entered an
Order of Dismissal after AMG represented that it would not seek to amend its
complaint any further. (C. 210; A5). AMG filed its Notice of Appeal on May 31,
2018. (C. 211-19; A39-47). This Court thus has appellate jurisdiction under Illinois
Supreme Court Rules 301 and 303.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
For purposes of this appeal, AMG assumes the truth of the factual allegations
in the Amended Complaint.
The Parties
AMG is a marketing services company, providing letter-shop and fulfillment
services for its clients. (C. 140; A10). Its Elk Grove Village facility warehouses a
full data processing center, as well as laser, print, and inserting equipment. (Id.)
When he resigned, Keane was an AMG shareholder and key employee. (Id.) He
also was an original founding AMG director and officer, but Keane did not hold
those titles when he resigned. (Id.)
Keane’s Pre-Resignation Purchase of a Competitor
On the afternoon of September 4, 2015, Keane resigned from AMG “effective
immediately.” (Id.) Keane delivered his resignation notice by email to Patty
2
Hermann (“Hermann”), AMG’s director and majority shareholder. (Id.) About a
month before, Keane formed a corporation to acquire The Mail House, which
also is in Elk Grove Village. (Id.; C. 144; A14). Around the same time, Keane had
registered a new domain name with the extension “mailhousedm.com,” along
with seven other domain names that all contained some iteration of the
“mailhouse” name. (C. 145; A15). At all times, The Mail House has conducted
letter-shop and fulfillment services much like, and competitive with, those
offered by AMG. (C. 144; A14). Keane negotiated and closed on the purchase of
The Mail House (or its assets) before severing his ties with AMG. (Id.)
Keane’s Failure to Disclose the Acquisition Opportunity
At no point in 2015 did Keane disclose to Hermann or AMG that he sought to
acquire The Mail House. (C. 147; A17). Nor did Keane ever advise Hermann or
AMG that the prior owners of The Mail House were interested in selling their
business. (Id.) AMG never consented to or approved Keane’s appropriation of
The Mail House acquisition for himself. (Id.) And Keane never disclosed any
facts to AMG about The Mail House acquisition opportunity before he purchased
the business. (Id.)
Keane’s Strategic and Acquisition Responsibilities at AMG
For several years before his resignation, Keane was a principal employee of
AMG with wide-ranging responsibilities. (C. 140-41; A10-11). Keane’s duties
were equivalent to those of an officer, in that he:
• consistently held himself out to third parties as an AMG owner

when developing customer relationships;
3
• had substantial responsibility for AMG employment decisions,
including hiring and termination of staff;
• had access to all AMG books and records, including client lists,
employee records, tax documents, vendor information, and billing
data;
• received a bonus equivalent to any that Hermann took;
• was responsible for developing and maintaining AMG’s financial

records and had full access to the same in the QuickBooks
accounting system;
• listed himself by name on Cook County’s published vendor

listing; and
• was the face of AMG to many repeat customers over which he

had substantial influence.
(Id.)
Throughout his tenure with AMG, Keane also was expected to explore—and
often did explore—strategic acquisitions, including the purchase of competing
letter-shop businesses, their equipment, and customer lists. (C. 141-43; A11-13).
These acquisitions and potential opportunities were all ones that Keane first
received, then disclosed to Hermann, and later evaluated with Hermann as
potential strategic targets. (C. 142-43; A12-13). Though AMG did not ultimate
close on two of the deals identified in the Amended Complaint, they were both
within AMG’s line of business and were the type of business opportunities that
Hermann reasonably expected Keane to present to AMG for full consideration.
(C. 143; A13). Before Keane’s departure, Keane and Hermann had even discussed
The Mail House as a potential acquisition target. (Id.) The Mail House provided
4
comparable products and services to the same type of clientele that AMG had
cultivated. (C. 144; A14).
Keane’s Related Pre-Resignation Conduct
Around the time Keane acquired The Mail House, he also engaged in other
pre-resignation activity that supports AMG’s tort claims. (C. 144-47; A14-17).
Those facts include Keane’s conduct in: (a) appropriating a client referral for The
Mail House that Keane hid from AMG until after he resigned; (b) disparaging
AMG to clients and vendors; (c) disabling AMG’s website; (d) soliciting a key
employee to join Keane at The Mail House; and (e) retaining samples of
confidential client material that belonged to AMG. (Id.)
The Circuit Court’s Dismissal Order
Keane moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. (C. 169-77). After full
briefing, the circuit court entered a Memorandum and Order granting Keane’s
motion and dismissing both claims in the Amended Complaint. (C. 206-09; A1-4).
In this Order, the court outlined the reasons why it determined that neither tort
claim met the Section 2-615 pleading standards. (Id.) The circuit court made the
dismissal final the next week, on May 9. (C. 210; A5).
ARGUMENT
I. Standard of Review
The Court uses a de novo standard of review to determine whether the circuit
court’s grant of a Section 2-615 motion to dismiss was proper. Weatherman v.
Gary-Wheaton Bank of Fox Valley, N.A., 186 Ill. 2d 472, 491 (1999). Under this
5
standard, the Court should determine whether the allegations of the Amended
Complaint, when construed in the light most favorable to AMG, are enough to
establish a cause of action on which relief may be granted. Id. The Court
considers all well-pleaded facts, along with reasonable inferences drawn from
those facts, and accepts them as true. Id.
II. AMG’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty establishes that the evaluation of
acquisitions, and so The Mail House opportunity itself, were part of
Keane’s agency relationship.
In Count I of the Amended Complaint, AMG sued Keane for breach of
fiduciary duty stemming from the misappropriation of a corporate opportunity.
(C. 147-49; A17-19). Under Illinois law, AMG can state a cause of action for
breach of fiduciary duty if it pleads: (1) the existence of a duty; (2) breach of that
duty; and (3) that the breach proximately caused the injury of which AMG
complains. Lawlor v. North American Corp. of Ill., 2012 IL 112530, ¶ 69. This appeal
hinges on the test’s first element. That is, has AMG stated a plausible claim that
Keane owed a fiduciary duty to disclose and tender The Mail House acquisition
opportunity to AMG before he resigned?
A. In holding that Keane owed AMG no duty, the circuit court failed to
apply corporate opportunity principles and Supreme Court precedent.
More than once, the Supreme Court has addressed an agent’s obligation to
his principal when the agent learns of a corporate opportunity. That is, an agent
may not “seize for his own advantage a business opportunity which rightfully
belongs to the corporation by which he is employed.” Mullaney, Wells & Co. v.
6
Savage, 78 Ill. 2d 534, 545-46 (1980). The basic contours of the doctrine are clear
and uncompromising. The fiduciary must disclose and tender, upon all pertinent
facts, any opportunity “reasonably incident” to the principal’s present or
prospective operations. Kerrigan v. Unity Sav. Ass’n, 58 Ill. 2d 20, 28 (1974). The
rule’s “prophylactic purpose” forecloses a fiduciary “from exploiting the
opportunity” on its own behalf if the fiduciary falls short of the disclose-and-
tender obligation. Id.
But in dismissing Count I, the circuit court did not mention the corporate
opportunity doctrine, apply it to the factual allegations, or cite either Kerrigan or
Savage. Nor, for that matter, did the circuit court acknowledge Keane’s fiduciary
status when he learned of the The Mail House opportunity and seized it for
himself. (C. 206-09; A1-4). Yet this status is an essential component of fiduciary
duty law. Lawlor, 2012 IL 112530, at ¶ 69 (stating “[e]mployees as well as officers
and directors owe a duty of loyalty to their employer.”); Ray v. Winter, 67 Ill. 2d
296, 304 (1977) (stating “[w]here, however, one voluntarily acts as an agent for
another, a fiduciary relationship exists as a matter of law.”).
Instead, the circuit court deconstructed Keane’s job title and status within
AMG during the period leading to his resignation. It reasoned:
The Amended Complaint fails to allege any facts that

Keane was an officer of AMG at the time of any of the
events set forth in the Amended Complaint. Being a
“key employee” is not the equivalent of being a
corporate officer. Therefore, the fiduciary rules
applicable to corporate officers do not apply to Keane.
(C. 208; A3).
7
To be sure, the corporate opportunity doctrine is not limited to directors and
officers. Under Savage, the corporate opportunity doctrine reflects agency law and
extends beyond just a discrete subset of corporate fiduciaries. Savage, 78 Ill. 2d at
549-50. That rule makes perfect sense, since businesses act through their agents.
Third parties deal with agents; principals expect agents to act. As Savage even
describes, “standard agency doctrine” obligates one in Keane’s position “to act
solely for the benefit of” his principal “in all matters connected with his agency.”
Savage, 78 Ill. 2d at 547. Keane thus had to disclose and tender all corporate
opportunities to AMG for its consideration upon all material facts.
By failing to apply the relevant corporate opportunity standards, the circuit
court was in no position to reach the correct result on Keane’s Section 2-615
motion. It conflated Keane’s title (really, the lack of officer status) with the scope
of his agency relationship at AMG. That is, the court never addressed the latter
and placed undue weight on the former. But Illinois courts have done nothing to
suggest that the corporate opportunity doctrine splits down the middle based on
job title alone.
B. The corporate opportunity doctrine’s parameters depend on the scope of

a fiduciary’s agency relationship, not a title.
The Supreme Court has explained that a fiduciary duty claim “is founded on
the substantive principles of agency, contract, and equity.” Armstrong v. Guigler,
174 Ill. 2d 281, 294 (1996). It should come as no surprise, then, that the scope of a
fiduciary’s agency relationship with his principal delimits the duty the fiduciary
8
owes. As an illustration, this Court in one corporate opportunity case stated that
the “precise nature and intensity of the duty of loyalty depends, however, upon
the degree of independent authority” the fiduciary exercises and the “reasonable
expectations” of his relationship with the principal. Dremco, Inc. v. S. Chapel Hill
Gardens, Inc., 274 Ill. App. 3d 534, 538 (1st Dist. 1995) (emphasis added). That
statement is a plain-English reformulation of what Savage says: fiduciary rules
depend on agency law.
Rather than focus on the investiture of a title, the circuit court should have
assessed the scope of Keane’s agency relationship with AMG. Only then could
the circuit court evaluate the duty question that girds Count I. In a prior order
dismissing AMG’s initial Complaint at Chancery, the circuit court seemed to
recognize the importance of Keane’s actual responsibilities and the scope of his
agency relationship at AMG. (C. 86-89). The circuit court noted that AMG, in its
initial pleading, “did not allege that Keane’s position with AMG involved
acquiring businesses for AMG. Nor does the Complaint allege that Keane
learned of the opportunity to buy The Mail House as part of his duties for
AMG.” (C. 88).
AMG then addressed this very concern. Indeed, AMG pleaded that
acquisition opportunities were part of Keane’s agency relationship through his
resignation. That is, AMG identified specific facts demonstrating Keane’s
executive level of responsibility within AMG. (C. 140-41; A10-11). Those
responsibilities demonstrate that Keane exhibited profound influence at AMG
9
and could make discretionary, strategic decisions along with Hermann about
AMG’s business. (Id.) What’s more, AMG outlined in detail—replete with
citations to evidentiary facts and exhibits not customarily found in a pleading—
just how Keane had evaluated acquisitions for AMG in the years leading up to
his resignation. (C. 141-44; A11-14).
Those allegations were enough to demonstrate, at a minimum, a factual
question of whether Keane’s agency relationship required him to disclose The
Mail House opportunity before he appropriated it for himself. If he had such a
duty, Kerrigan and Savage required Keane to disclose and tender that opportunity
to AMG for its full consideration and evaluation upon all material facts. Kerrigan,
58 Ill. 2d at 28; Savage, 78 Ill. 2d at 547. Only if AMG rejected the deal could
Keane then capitalize on it.
The circuit court’s analysis, though, inverted Kerrigan and Savage altogether,
eliminating the disclose-and-tender obligation simply because Keane lacked
formal officer status. The inquiry should have focused on Keane’s agency
relationship with AMG. Viewed through that prism, AMG sufficiently alleged
that Keane owed a duty not to misappropriate a corporate opportunity.
C. The “preliminary stages” doctrine does not override corporate-

opportunity principles.
The circuit court went on to absolve Keane further, stating he was “entitled to
form a competing business and purchase The Mail House while still employed
by AMG so long as he did not begin to compete against AMG while still
10
employed.” (C. 208; A3). The court’s discussion of this line of authority,
sometimes called the “preliminary stages” doctrine,1 paralleled the very
argument Keane made in claiming that he could acquire The Mail House without
first presenting it to AMG for evaluation. (C. 171-72). Indeed, Keane argued that
the circuit court should look past the corporate opportunity doctrine altogether,
reasoning that it applies “only to officers.” (C. 171). As Savage holds, that
proposition is wrong. Savage, 78 Ill. 2d at 549-50.
Keane’s argument rested on an unsteady foundation, at least to the extent
that argument called upon the circuit court to look past Kerrigan and Savage. A
discrete number of appellate court cases have stated that employees “may plan,
form and outfit a competing corporation while still working for the employer,
but they may not commence competition.” Dowell v. Bitner, 273 Ill. App. 3d 681,
691 (4th Dist. 1995); Veco Corp. v. Babcock, 243 Ill. App. 3d 153, 160 (1st Dist. 1993).
No court appears to have reconciled or even grappled with the tension between
the appellate court’s preliminary stages doctrine and the Supreme Court’s rules
governing corporate opportunities. Nor is it clear that the Supreme Court of
Illinois, with its focus on agency law principles, would endorse the preliminary
stages doctrine at all.
What is clear, however, is that courts still shun formal labels or titular status
in favor of a more pragmatic assessment of just what it is the fiduciary did for his
principal. The Seventh Circuit’s decision in Foodcomm Int’l v. Barry, 328 F.3d 300
1 See William Lynch Schaller, Disloyalty and Distrust: The Eroding Fiduciary Duties of
Illinois Employees, 3 DEPAUL BUS. L.J. 1 (Fall/Winter 1990-91).
11
(7th Cir. 2003), provides an example. There, the court found that two highly paid
employees had a heightened fiduciary duty attributable to corporate officers,
even though they were not executives within the company. Id. at 304. The key
facts in that case involved the employees’ decision to approach a key customer
before leaving Foodcomm and to create a rival entity that usurped Foodcomm’s
plans for a strategic deal with its customer. Id. at 302-03. Relying on Savage, the
court placed great weight on the employees’ control over purchasing and sales,
their compensation, job descriptions, and degree of autonomy and discretion. Id.
at 304. The lack of an officer title was simply irrelevant. What was relevant was
the employees’ “significant autonomy and discretion” at Foodcomm. Id. So too
here, AMG vested Keane with significant responsibility across all corporate
functions and relied on Keane to evaluate acquisitions. (C. 140-41; A10-11).
Also instructive is LCOR, Inc. v. Murray, No. 97 C 1302, 1997 WL 136278 (N.D.
Ill. Mar. 20, 1997). Relying on Savage, the court in LCOR found that an employee
had breached his fiduciary duty by secretly negotiating to purchase property his
employer had sought to acquire. Id. at *8. Because the acquisition was within the
employee’s agency, the court found that his self-dealing over the acquisition was
a breach of his fiduciary duty under Savage. Id. Again, the core inquiry was not
the employee’s title; the nexus between his agency relationship and the
complained-of conduct drove the court’s analysis. Analytically, LCOR is no
different than this case because the responsibilities for evaluating acquisitions
were within both employees’ agency relationships.
12
Another case on point is Regal-Beloit Corp. v. Drecoll, 955 F. Supp. 849 (N.D. Ill.
1996). That case, too, rejected Keane’s preliminary stages defense and discounted
the lack of a formal officer title when assessing whether some individuals owed a
fiduciary duty. The court entered a preliminary injunction in a corporate
opportunity claim, which arose out of senior employees’ efforts to acquire a
competing organization. In discussing the fiduciary duties the defendants owed,
the court found that even if the defendants were not “officers” they still owed
their employer a duty of loyalty over all matters under their agency. Id. at 858. To
be sure, that is precisely what Savage says. Savage, 78 Ill. 2d at 546-47. Given the
employees’ high-ranking positions and authority within Regal-Beloit, the court
even described their effort to declassify themselves as officers “specious at best.”
Regal-Beloit, 955 F. Supp. at 858. Once again, cases like Regal-Beloit reveal the
logical fallacy of trying to disaggregate fiduciary duties based on the mere
formality of a title.
In the Amended Complaint, AMG alleged specific facts outlining why the
“preliminary stages” doctrine would not absolve Keane from disclosing and
tendering The Mail House acquisition opportunity. Not only did AMG highlight
the executive-level responsibilities Keane discharged during his AMG
relationship, but it also outlined his involvement with negotiating and evaluating
specific acquisitions. (C. 140-44; A10-14). This was more than enough to sustain
Count I.
13
D. AMG properly alleged that Keane failed to disclose and tender The
Mail House acquisition opportunity.
The essence of the disclose-and-tender rule is that Keane had to present AMG
with The Mail House acquisition opportunity for evaluation purposes before
appropriating it for himself. Savage, 78 Ill. 2d at 549. In the Amended Complaint,
AMG lodged detailed allegations in Paragraphs 46 through 49 which, if proven
true, would underscore that Keane breached this duty. (C. 147; A17). Those
allegations show that Keane presented no aspect of The Mail House opportunity
to AMG while he was its fiduciary, let alone provide it with a full disclosure of
material facts. (Id.) The Court should credit those allegations for purposes of
determining whether AMG properly stated a corporate opportunity claim in
Count I. Weatherman, 186 Ill. 2d at 491.
AMG thus alleged a factually robust breach of fiduciary duty claim against
Keane for misappropriating The Mail House opportunity. The circuit court
applied the wrong legal standard to evaluate this claim. This Court should find
that AMG stated a proper cause of action in Count I of the Amended Complaint,
and that the circuit court erred in dismissing it.
III. The factual allegations arising from Keane’s appropriation of The Mail
House opportunity place it within a cognizable tortious interference claim.
The circuit court also erred in dismissing Count II of the Amended
Complaint, which asserted a claim for tortious interference with prospective
economic advantage. To sustain such a claim, AMG must allege: (1) its
reasonable expectation of entering into a valid business relationship; (2) Keane’s
14
knowledge of the expectancy; (3) purposeful interference by Keane that prevents
the legitimate expectancy from ripening into a valid business relationship; and
(4) damages to resulting from the interference. Fellhauer v. City of Geneva, 142 Ill.
2d 495, 511 (1991).
AMG based its interference claim on two particular expectancies: The Mail
House acquisition itself and a client referral that Keane first received at AMG,
hid for himself, and then exploited when he left. (C. 149-50; A19-20). In its May 1
Memorandum and Order, the circuit court never addressed the first basis for
AMG’s interference claim. (C. 208-09; A3-4). Even so, AMG alleged enough facts
to sustain this cause of action under Fellhauer based on Keane’s pre-termination
acquisition of The Mail House:
• First, AMG alleged that Keane was aware of AMG’s

interest in acquiring competing letter-shop and
fulfillment services businesses. What’s more, AMG
outlined specific transactions with which Keane was
involved, even alleging that AMG discussed The Mail
House with Keane as a potential acquisition target.
(C. 141-44; A11-14).
• Second, those same allegations involve Keane

directly and are thus enough to satisfy the
requirement that he have knowledge of the identified
expectancy.
•Third, AMG alleged that Keane acted improperly in

terminating the expectancy. On that score, AMG even
outlined corroborating facts that illustrate how Keane
acted in an unfair, deceptive, and improper manner
around the time of his departure. (C. 144-47; A14-17).
•And fourth, AMG has alleged that it incurred

damage from Keane’s interference because it was not
15
able to evaluate, much less acquire, a strategic
competitor. (C. 150; A20).
Under the four elements outlined in Fellhauer, the circuit court should not
have dismissed Count II had it even examined the allegations about Keane’s
purchase of The Mail House.
The circuit court also improperly dismissed Count II for failing to state a
claim arising out of Keane’s appropriation of a client referral from JD Graphics.
In its analysis, the circuit court only stated that AMG failed to allege facts
showing that it “had a valid business relationship with JD Graphics or a valid
expectancy for such a relationship.” (C. 209; A4). The circuit court, though,
looked right past what AMG alleged.
The Amended Complaint set forth facts showing that Keane received a
referral from JD Graphics related to print work for a division of the Daily Herald.
(C. 145; A15). Keane learned of this referral before his resignation from AMG. (Id.)
AMG, however, was unaware of the referral until JD Graphics followed up to see
what had occurred with it. (Id.) Ultimately, The Mail House—with Keane at the
helm—performed the work JD Graphics had referred to AMG. (Id.)
These facts support each element of AMG’s interference claim. For starters,
the circuit court simply got it wrong when it evaluated whether AMG had an
expectancy in work with JP Graphics. (C. 209; A4). The expectancy was the work
referred by JD Graphics. And this Court should make the reasonable inference
that work JD Graphics sent to Keane as an AMG employee, which JD Graphics
later followed up on with AMG, was in fact intended for AMG. (C. 145; A15).
16
AMG has also alleged facts demonstrating knowledge of the expectancy.
Keane received the referral from his son, James, Jr., who at the time was also an
AMG employee. (C. 145; A15). That referral came into AMG. (Id.) James, Jr. then
sent the referral to Keane’s personal email address, meaning Keane had full
access to it after he severed his ties with AMG just a few days later. (Id.) Again,
AMG has identified facts supporting the knowledge component of the tort claim.
So too, these same facts show purposeful interference, particularly since The Mail
House exploited the referral sent to AMG shortly after Keane resigned. (Id.)
Lastly, AMG has alleged damage since it lost to The Mail House the client work
JD Graphics had sent. The circuit court truncated its analysis of Count II, failed to
evaluate the elements of the interference claim, and overlooked key factual
allegations that supported the claim.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, AMG requests that the Court reverse the circuit court’s
May 1 and 9, 2018 Orders, which dismissed the Amended Complaint at
Chancery with prejudice, and remand this cause to the circuit court for further
proceedings on Counts I and II.
17
Respectfully submitted,
ADVANTAGE MARKETING GROUP,

LTD.
By: /s/ Kenneth J. Vanko

Kenneth J. Vanko
Kenneth J. Vanko
(630) 871-2600
vanko@ccmlawyer.com
18
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that this brief conforms to the requirements of Supreme Court Rules
341(a) and (b). The length of this brief, excluding the pages containing the Rule
341(d) cover, the Rule 341(h)(1) statement of points and authorities, the Rule
341(c) certificate of compliance, the certificate of service, and those matters to be
appended to the brief under Rule 342(a), is 17 pages.
ADVANTAGE MARKETING GROUP,

LTD.

Kenneth J. Vanko
Kenneth J. Vanko
(630) 871-2600
vanko@ccmlawyer.com
19
No. 1-18-1126
IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

)
ADVANTAGE MARKETING GROUP, LTD., ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of
) Cook County
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
) Case No. 2017 CH 05559
v. )
) Circuit Judge: Neil H. Cohen
)
JAMES P. KEANE, SR., ) Appeal from Orders dated May 1
) and 9, 2018
)
TABLE OF CONTENTS TO APPENDIX
Description Appendix Page

1. May 1, 2018 Order A1 - 4
2. May 9, 2018 Order A5
3. Amended Complaint at Chancery A6 - 38
4. Notice of Appeal A39 - 47
5. Table of Contents for Record on Appeal A48 - 49
A1
A2
A3
A4
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION
ADVANTAGE MARKETING GROUP, INC.
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 2017 CH 05559
JAMES P. KEANE, SR., Calendar 05
Defendant.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
THIS CAUSE, coming on to be heard for a status hearing, and Plaintiff having
advised the Court that it will not seek further amendment of its Complaint;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The Court having previously dismissed Plaintiffs Amended Complaint at

Chancery on May 1,2018, this matter is now dismissed with prejudice.
2. This is a final and appealable order under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 303.
ENTERED
ENTERED:
MAY "9 2018

>.-.w««N
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
Judge Neil H. Cohen

Order Prepared By:
Kenneth J. Vanko
Emily L. Langhenry
Clingen, Callow & McLean, LLC
Attorney No. 39631
Lisle, IL 60532
630.871.2600
vanko®ccmlawyer.corn
langhenrv@ccmlawyer.com
!<mw<«.wk.do<:x /v. I
A5
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
1/23/2018 10:30 AM
2017-CH-05559
CALENDAR: 05
PAGE 1 of 33
CIRCUIT COURT OF
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
CHANCERY DIVISION
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISIONCLERK DOROTHY BROWN
ADVANTAGE MARKETING GROUP, INC. )

)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2017 CH 05559
)
JAMES P. KEANE, SR., ) Calendar 05
)
Defendant. )
)
NOTICE OF FILING
TO: Paul W. Carroll
Eric P. Sparks
222 North LaSalle Street, Ste. 800
Chicago, Illinois 60601
esparks@gouldratner.com
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 23, 2018 we electronically filed with the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois the following documents: Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint at Chancery, true and correct copies thereof are served upon you
herewith.
CLINGEN CALLOW & McLEAN, LLC
By: /s/Kenneth J. Vanko

One of Its Attorneys
Kenneth J. Vanko
Attorney No. 39631
Lisle, IL 60532
630.871.2600
vanko@ccmlawyer.com
{00391545.DOCX /v. 1 }
A6
PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned non-attorney, certifies that on January 23, 2018, she caused to be
served via email the foregoing Notice of Filing and Response to Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss upon the following counsel of record:
Paul W. Carroll
Eric P. Sparks
By: /s/Nikki Matthiscyk

1/23/2018 10:30 AM
2017-CH-05559
PAGE 2 of 33
{00391545.DOCX /v. 1 }
A7
ADVANTAGE MARKETING GROUP, LTD. )

)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2017 CH 5559
)
JAMES P. KEANE, SR., )
)
Defendant. )
AMENDED COMPLAINT AT CHANCERY
The Plaintiff, Advantage Marketing Group, Ltd., states as follows for its Amended
Complaint at Chancery against James P. Keane, Sr.:

1/23/2018 10:30 AM
2017-CH-05559
PAGE 3 of 33
Nature of the Case
1. This is an action for breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference with
prospective economic advantage, which arises out of James P. Keane, Sr.’s relationship
with Advantage Marketing Group, Ltd. (“AMG”). In the months leading up to his
abrupt resignation, Keane― a significant shareholder and a key employee with duties
akin to that of an AMG officer―failed to disclose that he was secretly negotiating to
purchase a directly competing business called “The Mail House.”
2. During his AMG affiliation, Keane had the responsibility to explore the
acquisition of competing letter-shop businesses, their equipment, and customer lists.
Had AMG known The Mail House was for sale, it would have sought to acquire it.
Keane owed a strict fiduciary obligation to disclose and tender this corporate
opportunity to AMG and not to actively exploit his position at AMG for his own
A8
personal benefit. Instead of complying with this duty to disclose and tender, Keane
bought The Mail House for himself and then abruptly quit.
3. In this action, AMG seeks the imposition of a constructive trust over The Mail
House business Keane purchased, a judgment ordering Keane to convey his interest in
The Mail House to AMG, and damages caused by his breach of fiduciary duty.
Parties and Venue
4. AMG is an Illinois corporation with its principal of business located at 1550
Howard Street, Elk Grove Village, Illinois.
5. Keane is an Illinois resident who, upon information and belief, currently lives at
110 Elm Street, Prospect Heights, Illinois.

1/23/2018 10:30 AM
2017-CH-05559
PAGE 4 of 33
6. Keane, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its registered office at 222 N. LaSalle
St., Suite 800, Chicago, Illinois. Keane is the President of Keane, Inc., which has a
registered assumed name of “The Mail House.” Upon information and belief, Keane is
the sole owner of The Mail House. AMG does not join The Mail House as a necessary or
indispensable party based on the doctrine of representation. However, AMG reserves
the right to further amend this Amended Complaint at Chancery should discovery reveal,
or should the Court determine, that The Mail House should be a necessary or
indispensable party given AMG’s principal requested relief of a constructive trust.
White Gates Skeet Club, Inc. v. Lightfine, 276 Ill. App. 3d 537 (2d Dist. 1995).
7. Venue is proper in this Court because all parties reside in Cook County, Illinois.
2
A9
Background Facts
8. For over twenty years, AMG has been a marketing services company, providing
letter-shop and fulfillment services for its clients. Its Elk Grove Village facility
warehouses a full data processing center, as well as laser, print, and inserting
equipment. AMG handles print and mailing programs, small and complex, for its
clients.
9. Keane is a former AMG director, officer, and employee. He also remains a 35
percent shareholder in AMG. Keane was an original AMG founder, owner, and
director.
10. At 4:16 p.m. on September 4, 2015 (the Friday before Labor Day), Keane resigned
1/23/2018 10:30 AM
2017-CH-05559
PAGE 5 of 33
from AMG “effective immediately.” Keane delivered his resignation notice by e-mail to
Patty Hermann, AMG’s director and majority shareholder.
11. Upon information and belief, Keane had already acquired The Mail House, or
substantially all of its assets, from the company’s previous owner by the time he
dissociated from AMG.
12. For several years before his abrupt resignation, Keane was a principal employee
of AMG with wide-ranging responsibilities equivalent to those of an officer, which
included the following:
a. Keane consistently held himself out to third parties as an AMG owner
when developing customer relationships;
b. Keane had substantial responsibility for AMG employment decisions,
including hiring and termination of staff;
3
A10
c. Keane had access to all AMG books and records, including client lists,
employee records, tax documents, vendor information, and billing data;
d. Keane and Hermann received equivalent bonuses;
e. Keane was responsible for developing and maintaining AMG’s financial
records and had full access to the same in the QuickBooks accounting
system;
f. Keane listed himself by name (and with reference to his personal
residence) on Cook County’s published vendor listing; and
g. Keane was the face of AMG to many repeat customers over which he had
substantial influence, including the Hope Institute for Children and

1/23/2018 10:30 AM
2017-CH-05559
PAGE 6 of 33
Families, Tony Sicilliani, and Consolidated Printing.
13. Throughout his tenure with AMG, Keane also was expected to explore, and
frequently did explore, strategic acquisitions, including the purchase of competing
letter-shop businesses, their equipment, and customer lists.
14. For instance, AMG’s first acquisition involved the purchase of equipment and
customer list, as well as retention of employees, from a competing letter-shop called
“We’ve Got Time.”
15. Keane was involved with the negotiation and acquisition of We’ve Got Time.
AMG even retained Keane’s personal accountant to explore acquisitions before the
We’ve Got Time opportunity materialized.
16. Keane’s responsibility for, and involvement with, acquisitions continued beyond
AMG’s closing of We’ve Got Time’s assets. In this regard, Keane was the key point of
4
A11
contact with auction houses and business brokers who facilitated asset sales in the
letter-shop business.
17. For instance, in July of 2012, Keane received an e-mail to his personal address
(jpk2459@comcast.net) from an industrial auctioneer, Glenn A. Winternitz, that
advertised the auction of mailing equipment for a business called The Mailing
Department, LLC in Palatine, Illinois. A true and correct copy of the July 18, 2012 e-mail
to Keane is attached as Exhibit A. AMG later acquired The Mailing Department’s useful
equipment and its entire customer list.
18. Thereafter, Keane was aware of, and involved with, other strategic acquisitions
for AMG. In May of 2013, Keane discussed a potential acquisition of Rockford

1/23/2018 10:30 AM
2017-CH-05559
PAGE 7 of 33
Printer/Mailer with a business broker named Chuck Lutzlow of CAL Financial Group.
Keane received an e-mail from Lutzlow’s office dated May 7, 2013, in which Lutzlow’s
assistant had requested the review and execution of a Confidentiality Agreement to
further business sale negotiations. A true and correct copy of the May 7, 2013 e-mail to
Keane is attached as Exhibit B.
19. Later that year, in October of 2013, Keane again received a communication from
Glenn A. Winternitz, advertising for sale a business in Kentucky called Gannett Direct
Marketing Services. Keane immediately forwarded that communication to Hermann. A
true and correct copy of the October 8, 2013 e-mail to Keane is attached as Exhibit C.
20. These potential opportunities―The Mailing Department, Rockford
Printer/Mailer, and Gannett Direct―were all ones that Keane initially received,
disclosed to Hermann, and later evaluated with Hermann as potential strategic targets.
5
A12
21. Though AMG did not ultimate close on two of those deals (Rockford
Printer/Mailer and Gannett Direct), they were both within AMG’s line of business and
were the type of business opportunities that Hermann reasonably expected Keane to
present to AMG for full consideration.
22. Illustrating the breadth of his strategic and acquisition responsibility at AMG,
Keane was the key point of contact throughout 2013 regarding AMG’s opportunity to
move or acquire property to conduct its business operations. True and correct copies of
e-mails demonstrating Keane’s involvement in these real estate discussions are attached
as Group Exhibit D.
23. Before Keane’s 2015 departure from AMG, he also was aware of The Mail House,
1/23/2018 10:30 AM
2017-CH-05559
PAGE 8 of 33
the business he ultimately acquired just before resigning. This competing business sat
within just a few blocks of AMG’s offices.
24. On July 10, 2013, Keane’s son, James, Jr., sent an e-mail to Keane and Hermann.
In this e-mail, James, Jr. (then an AMG employee) wrote the subject line “re:
Mailhouse―Rebranded Website―Is that the same ownership group as before?” In the body of
the e-mail, James, Jr. then attached a link for The Mail House’s website. A true and
correct copy of the July 10, 2013 is attached as Exhibit E.
25. Keane and Hermann discussed The Mail House in the Summer and Fall of 2013
and whether it was a viable acquisition target. Though Hermann is unaware of when
Keane ultimately began his own discussions about buying The Mail House, the business
was one that AMG had explored acquiring.
6
A13
26. As illustrated by the foregoing, Keane had significant strategic and tactical
responsibilities equivalent to that of an AMG officer.
27. At some point before his departure from AMG, Keane started to withhold
information for himself and communicated outside of AMG channels, using his
personal e-mail account while failing to forward information that he wished to hold for
his own benefit.
28. On March 10, 2014, and without disclosing this to AMG, Keane ported his
assigned corporate cell phone number to his own personal account and outside the
view of AMG. This enabled Keane to retain and use the number following his
resignation from AMG and further prevented AMG from controlling communications
1/23/2018 10:30 AM
2017-CH-05559
PAGE 9 of 33
that Keane had during his AMG affiliation.
29. On August 12, 2015, before his resignation, Keane formed Keane, Inc. d/b/a The
Mail House. Upon information and belief, Keane formed this corporation to acquire The
Mail House, which (like AMG) is located in Elk Grove Village. At all times, The Mail
House has conducted letter-shop and fulfillment services similar to, and competitive
with, those offered by AMG.
30. Upon further information and belief, Keane was interested in acquiring The Mail
House well before his abrupt resignation on September 4, 2015 and in fact negotiated
and closed the transaction before severing his ties as a key AMG employee with duties
equivalent to those of an officer.
7
A14
31. For instance, on August 3, 2015, Keane registered a new domain name called
mailhousedm.com, along with seven other domain names that all contained the name
“mailhouse.”
32. Keane’s competitive activities in the week leading up to his resignation extended
beyond the acquisition of The Mail House. In September of 2015 before he resigned
from AMG, Keane failed to disclose and tender to AMG a referral he received from JD
Graphics related to print work for a division of the Daily Herald.
33. In particular, James, Jr. forwarded to Keane (at his personal e-mail account) the
referral from JD Graphics. A true and correct copy of James, Jr.’s e-mail to Keane dated
September 3, 2015 is attached as Exhibit F.

1/23/2018 10:30 AM
2017-CH-05559
PAGE 10 of 33
34. Keane then exploited this same referral after he began operating The Mail House.
In fact, AMG did not learn of the referral until JD Graphics followed up with a phone
call to AMG to ascertain the referral’s status. JD Graphics had learned that The Mail
House ultimately had conducted the work reflected in Exhibit F.
35. During this same period shortly before resigning, Keane approached and told
clients and vendors of AMG that AMG was in danger of closing its doors because of
financial issues.
36. The day after Keane’s departure (September 5), AMG discovered the security
cameras were turned off and its security tapes were missing.
37. And then a few days later on September 9, Keane disabled AMG’s website. He
did not transfer AMG’s website materials back to AMG for more than a week. By that
time, AMG had established, out of business necessity, an entirely new website.
8
A15
38. One day before transferring the website content files back to AMG, James, Jr.
registered a new website domain – amgltd.co – which differs by one letter from AMG’s
domain name (amgltd.com).
39. James, Jr. is actively involved in The Mail House. Upon information and belief,
Keane either was aware of, or actively encouraged, James, Jr. to disable AMG’s website
and then register a substantially similar domain name.
40. While he was a key AMG employee, James, Jr. directly reported to Keane. James,
Jr. tendered his resignation to AMG on September 7, 2015, the day before the start of the
work week and three days after Keane himself resigned.

41. Before he resigned from AMG, Keane solicited James, Jr. to leave AMG and join
1/23/2018 10:30 AM
2017-CH-05559
PAGE 11 of 33
him at The Mail House. At the time James, Jr. left AMG, he was the second-highest paid
employee outside of Keane himself and Hermann.
42. Keane never sought AMG’s consent before soliciting James, Jr. to leave AMG and
join a direct competitor. Nor did Keane seek AMG’s consent to appropriate the JD
Graphics referral or to interfere with AMG’s website operation.
43. At the time of his departure, James, Jr. acquired samples of confidential client
material that belonged to AMG. The client sought to have AMG examine these
materials for compatibility with AMG’s equipment.
44. Keane kept the samples for himself, resigned, and then only returned these client
materials after AMG’s then-counsel demanded their return. Since his acquisition of The
Mail House, Keane has continued to perform letter-shop and print work for this
particular client.
9
A16
45. At all times before Keane’s resignation, The Mail House was known to AMG as a
competitor. The Mail House provided comparable products and services to the same
type of clientele that AMG had serviced and cultivated. Accordingly, The Mail House
was, and remains, in the same line of business as AMG.
46. At no point in 2015 did Keane disclose to Hermann or AMG that he sought to
acquire The Mail House. Nor did Keane ever advise Hermann or AMG that the prior
owners of The Mail House were interested in selling their business to a third party.
47. To this day, AMG is unaware of the terms on which Keane bought The Mail
House.
48. Had Keane brought The Mail House acquisition opportunity to AMG, AMG
1/23/2018 10:30 AM
2017-CH-05559
PAGE 12 of 33
would have been interested in pursuing it.
49. AMG never consented to or approved Keane’s appropriation of The Mail House
acquisition for himself. Moreover, Keane never disclosed any fact―let alone all material
facts―to AMG regarding The Mail House acquisition opportunity.
50. Since Keane has acquired The Mail House, he has solicited and serviced
customers of AMG, including those such as The Hope Institute for Children and
Families, with which he developed a relationship while a key employee, officer,
director, and/or shareholder of AMG.
COUNT I
CLAIM FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
51. AMG restates and realleges Paragraphs 1-50 as though fully restated and
realleged as this Paragraph 51.
10
A17
52. As a key AMG employee with responsibility equivalent to those of an officer,
Keane owed a fiduciary duty of loyalty, fidelity, rectitude, candor, and good faith.
53. Keane’s fiduciary duty in this capacity prohibited him from actively exploiting
his position within AMG for his own personal benefit and from hindering the ability of
AMG to continue the business for which it was developed.
54. Keane also owed AMG a fiduciary duty to disclose and tender all corporate
opportunities, including all material facts, to AMG.
55. Keane breached his fiduciary duty to AMG by:
a. Secretly negotiating and purchasing a directly competing business, The

Mail House, while still employed by AMG and serving as a key AMG
1/23/2018 10:30 AM
2017-CH-05559
PAGE 13 of 33
employee with duties and responsibilities functionally equivalent to those
of an officer;
b. Failing to disclose and tender a corporate opportunity, namely the
potential acquisition of The Mail House, to AMG for its full and complete
consideration;
c. Soliciting James, Jr. to leave AMG and join The Mail House;
d. Misappropriating referrals for existing letter-shop work that were sent to
AMG, without AMG’s knowledge of consent;
e. Misappropriating client samples belonging to AMG, without AMG’s
knowledge or consent; and
f. Disabling or otherwise interfering with AMG’s website.
11
A18
56. Keane took these actions knowingly, willfully, and intentionally, and without
just cause.
57. As a direct and proximate result of Keane’s breach of fiduciary duty, AMG has
been damaged and continues to suffer damages.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
Accordingly, AMG requests that this Court enter judgment in its favor on Count I
and award the following relief:
A. Impose a constructive trust on The Mail House business to be held for the
benefit of AMG, specifically including all client relationships and goodwill

that The Mail House maintains;

1/23/2018 10:30 AM
2017-CH-05559
PAGE 14 of 33
B. Order Keane to transfer his interest in The Mail House to AMG;
C. Award AMG compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
D. Award AMG punitive damages for Keane’s willful and wanton conduct in
violating his fiduciary duty;
E. Award AMG damages equivalent to complete compensation forfeiture from
the time Keane first breached his fiduciary duty to AMG through September
4, 2015; and
F. Award AMG its costs and such other relief as the Court deems just and
appropriate.
COUNT II
CLAIM FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE
58. AMG restates and realleges Paragraphs 1-50 as though fully restated and
realleged as this Paragraph 58.
12
A19
59. By virtue of Keane’s position as a significant AMG shareholder with
employment duties akin to that of an officer, AMG had a reasonable expectancy of: (a)
acquiring competing letter-shop and fulfillment services companies, such as The Mail
House; and (b) capitalizing on referrals for client print work, as discussed more fully
above.
60. Keane had knowledge of AMG’s expectation of entering into a valid business
relationship to acquire competing letter-shop and fulfillment services companies, such
as The Mail House, and to capitalize on referrals for print work, as discussed more fully
above.
61. By acquiring The Mail House for himself and by appropriating the client referral
1/23/2018 10:30 AM
2017-CH-05559
PAGE 15 of 33
described above, Keane intentionally and without justification caused a termination of
AMG’s expectation of entering into, or continuing, valid business relationships.
62. Keane took these actions knowingly, willfully, and intentionally, and without
just cause.
63. As a direct and proximate result of Keane’s actions, AMG has incurred damages.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
Accordingly, AMG requests that this Court enter judgment in its favor on Count II
and award the following relief:
A. Award AMG compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
B. Award AMG punitive damages for Keane’s willful and wanton conduct in
interfering with AMG’s business expectancies; and
C. Award AMG its costs and such other relief as the Court deems just and
appropriate.
13
A20
Dated: January 16, 2018 Respectfully submitted,
ADVANTAGE MARKETING GROUP, LTD.
/s/ Kenneth J. Vanko

Kenneth J. Vanko
Kenneth J. Vanko
(I.D. No. 39631)
630-871-2600
vanko@ccmlawyer.com
1/23/2018 10:30 AM
2017-CH-05559
PAGE 16 of 33
14
A21
1/23/2018 10:30 AM
2017-CH-05559
PAGE 17 of 33
EXHIBIT A
A22
1/7/2018 Fwd: Online Auction - Late Model Mailing Equipment
From: jpk2459 <jpk2459@comcast.net>

To: AMGLTD <AMGLTD@AOL.COM>
Subject: Fwd: Online Auction - Late Model Mailing Equipment
Date: Wed, Jul 18, 2012 11:27 am
From: "Glenn A. Winternitz, LLC" <auctions(S)winternitzauction.com>

To: jpk2459(g)comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 10:30:07 AM
Subject: Online Auction - Late Model Mailing Equipment
Having trouble viewing this email? Click here
Hi, just a reminder that you're receiving this email because you have expressed an interest in Glenn A.
Winternitz, LLC. Don't forget to add auctions@winternitzauction.com to your address book so we'll be sure to
land in your inbox!
You may unsubscribe if you no longer wish to receive our emails.
W G L E N N A.
INTERNI .*_ uuc

1/23/2018 10:30 AM
2017-CH-05559
PAGE 18 of 33
INDUSTRIAL AUCTIONEERS A APPRAISERS
JLuction
•* M »,
rn
LINK TO THE SALE COMING SOON!
VISIT OUR WEBSITE!
https://mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/PrintMessage 1/4
A23
1/23/2018 10:30 AM
2017-CH-05559
PAGE 19 of 33
EXHIBIT B
A24
1/23/2018 10:30 AM
2017-CH-05559
PAGE 20 of 33
A25
1/23/2018 10:30 AM
2017-CH-05559
PAGE 21 of 33
EXHIBIT C
A26
1/7/2018 amgltd Mail- Fwd: Available for Immediate Sale! Gannett Direct Marketing Services - Louisville. KY
Gm il i«i|v
Patty Hermann <phermann@goamg.com>
Fwd: Available for Immediate Sale! Gannett Direct Marketing Services - Louisville,
KY
2 messages
Patty Hermann <phermann@goamg.com> Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 11:00 AM

To: Patricia Hermann <phermann@amgltd.com>
Forwarded message
From: <jpk2459@comcast.net>
Date: Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 3:15 PM
Subject: Fwd: Available for Immediate Sale! Gannett Direct Marketing Services - Louisville, KY
To: Patty hermann <phermann@amgltd.com>
Patty FYI
From: "Glenn A. Winternitz, LLC" <glenn@wintemitzauction.com>

To: jpk2459@comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2013 12:43:42 PM

1/23/2018 10:30 AM
Subject: Available for Immediate Sale! Gannett Direct Marketing Services - Louisville, KY
2017-CH-05559
PAGE 22 of 33
t $
4
feBSBW£-.~
i
AVAILABLE IMMEDIATELY!
all equipment subject to prior sale
Printing & Mailing Facility Liquidation of

Gannett Direct Marketing Services
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/2/?ui=2&ik=0d7d0943b6&jsver=veKV0pjiDTc.en.&vievv=pt&q=jpk2459%40comcast.net&qs=true&search=query&th=160... 1/2
A27
1/23/2018 10:30 AM
2017-CH-05559
PAGE 23 of 33
EXHIBIT D
A28
1/7/2018 amgltd Mail - Fwd: nichols
t.v,.'0;>k-
Fwd: nichols
1 message
Patty Hermann <phermann@goamg.com> Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 11:43 AM

To: ekrakauer@gmaii.com
Forwarded message
From: <jpk2459@comcast.net>
Date: Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:23 AM
Subject: Fwd: nichols
To: phermann <phermann@amgltd.com> Manny <ekrakauer@gmail.com>
951 Nicholas Elk Grove ; See second to last building from Jeffs building prior email
17,380 sq feet/3000 ofc

16 high
asking $6.50 gross if we got $5.50 average year one / two /three S7966 month
1/23/2018 10:30 AM
Taxes low at $1.45 sq foot currently; could be due to building being vacant
2017-CH-05559
PAGE 24 of 33
parking okay
From: "Jeff Provenza" <JProvenza@darwinrealty.com>

To: jpk2459@comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 9:20:40 AM
Subject: nichols
Jim,
Per our convo please see attached spec sheet. There is a layout on the last page. They have
reduced the sale price. Please let me know if a purchase is a possibility.
We should go look at this building this week.
Jeff
Jeffrey J. Provenza
Darwin Realty & Development Corporation
970 N. Oak Lawn Avenue
Suite 100
Elmhurst, IL 60126
(630) 782-9520 Office
(630) 747-6350 Mobile
jprovenza@darwinrealty.com
www.darwinrealty.com
https://mail.googlexom/mail/u/2/?ui=2&ik=0d7d0943b6&jsver=veKV0pjlDTc.en.&view=pt&q=jpk2459%40comcast.net&qs=true&search=query&th=160... 1/2
A29
1/23/2018 10:30 AM
2017-CH-05559
PAGE 25 of 33
A30
1/23/2018 10:30 AM
2017-CH-05559
PAGE 26 of 33
A31
1/23/2018 10:30 AM
2017-CH-05559
PAGE 27 of 33
A32
1/23/2018 10:30 AM
2017-CH-05559
PAGE 28 of 33
A33
1/23/2018 10:30 AM
2017-CH-05559
PAGE 29 of 33
EXHIBIT E
A34
1/7/2018 amgltd Mail - Fwd: Mailhouse - Rebranded Website - Isthat sameownership group as before?
Gm il i
Patty Hermann <phermann@goamg.com>
Fwd: Mailhouse - Rebranded Website - Is that same ownership group as before?

1 message
Patty Hermann <phermann@goamg.com> Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at5:16 PM

To: e krakauer <ekrakauer@gmail.com>, ekrakauer@amgltd.com
Forwarded message
From: James Keane <jameskeanejr@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 11:56 AM
Subject: re: Mailhouse - Rebranded Website - Is that same ownership group as before?
To: phermann@amgltd.com
Cc: jpk2459@comcast.net
http://www.maildawn.com
1/23/2018 10:30 AM
2017-CH-05559
PAGE 30 of 33
https://mail.googlexorrtfmail/u/2/?ui=2&ik=0d7d094^ 1/1
A35
1/23/2018 10:30 AM
2017-CH-05559
PAGE 31 of 33
EXHIBIT F
A36
Advantage Marketing Group Ltd Mail - Fwd: Wood Dale, IL Ready f... https://niail.google.coni/inail/u/0/?ui-2&ik-lb00b9031b&jsver=CS.
GmsiI
byCopgte
Patricia Hermann <phermann@amgltd.com>
Fwd: Wood Dale, IL Ready for Print

1 message
James Keane <jameskeanejr@gmail.com> Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 2:43 PM

To: James Keane AMG EMAIL <jkeane@amgltd.com>, jpk2459@comcast.net
Sincerely,
Jimmy Keane
e: jameskeanejr@gmail.com
p: 847.212.9031
Begin forwarded message:
From: Nick DeBlasio <nick@jdgraphic.com>

Date: September 2, 2015 at 11:11:17 AM CDT
To: Advantage Marketing Group <amgltd@aol.com>
Subject: Fwd: Wood Dale, IL Ready for Print
Nick DeBlasio
Business Development
1/23/2018 10:30 AM
2017-CH-05559
PAGE 32 of 33
Office: 847.354 4000 | Cell:847.744 0282 | Fax: 647.354 4024

E: Nick@JDGraphic.com | www.JDGraphic.coni
JD Graphic, Co Inc | 1101 ArthurAve | Elk Grove Wage. Ilinois 60007
Forwarded message
From: Nugara, Joe <jnugara@tspubs com>
Date: Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:05 AM
Subject: Wood Dale, IL Ready for Print
To: Nick DeBlasio <nick@jdgraphic.com>
Cc: "Ray, Scott" <sray@tspubs.com>
Good morning Nick, the files for Wood Dale are ready and on our FTP site. Below is the print confirmation.
Thanks!
WOOD DALE, IL
8.5" x 10.875"
28 Total Pages (24+Cover)
6,500 Copies
Saddlestitch
lof2 1/21/20I7, 1:19 PM
A37
1/23/2018 10:30 AM
2017-CH-05559
PAGE 33 of 33
A38
5/31/2018 8:49 AM
2017-CH-05559
CALENDAR: 05
PAGE 1 of 9
CIRCUIT COURT OF
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
CHANCERY DIVISION
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISIONCLERK DOROTHY BROWN
ADVANTAGE MARKETING GROUP, INC. )

)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2017 CH 05559
)
)
Defendant. )
)
NOTICE OF FILING
TO: Eric P. Sparks
Justin W. Hanson
jwhanson@gouldratner.com
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 31, 2018 we electronically filed with the Clerk
of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois the following documents: Notice of Appeal,
true and correct copies thereof are served upon you herewith.
By: /s/Kenneth J. Vanko

Kenneth J. Vanko
Attorney No. 39631
Lisle, IL 60532
630.871.2600
vanko@ccmlawyer.com
{00411451.DOCX /v. 1 }
A39
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby states that she served the referenced documents to the
parties listed in the attached service list via e-mail on May 31, 2018.
Eric P. Sparks
Justin W. Hanson
By: /s/ Nikki Matthiscyk
5/31/2018 8:49 AM
2017-CH-05559
PAGE 2 of 9
{00411451.DOCX /v. 1 } 2
A40
APPEAL TO THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY

)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2017 CH 05559
)
)
Defendant. )
NOTICE OF APPEAL
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Plaintiff, Advantage Marketing Group, Ltd.,
appeals to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District, from the Order of the
5/31/2018 8:49 AM
2017-CH-05559
Circuit Court of Cook County, entered in this case on May 1, 2018, made final and
PAGE 3 of 9
appealable by the Order entered May 9, 2018, true and correct copies of which are
attached as Exhibit A.
The Plaintiff requests that the Appellate Court of Illinois reverse the Orders entered
and from which the Plaintiff appeals and remand the case for further proceedings.
Dated: May 31, 2018 Respectfully submitted,
/s/Kenneth J. Vanko
Kenneth J. Vanko
Kenneth J. Vanko
(I.D. No. 39631)
630-871-2600
vanko@ccmlawyer.com
A41
5/31/2018 8:49 AM
2017-CH-05559
PAGE 4 of 9
2
EXHIBIT A
A42
5/31/2018 8:49 AM
2017-CH-05559
PAGE 5 of 9
A43
5/31/2018 8:49 AM
2017-CH-05559
PAGE 6 of 9
A44
5/31/2018 8:49 AM
2017-CH-05559
PAGE 7 of 9
A45
5/31/2018 8:49 AM
2017-CH-05559
PAGE 8 of 9
A46
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 2017 CH 05559
JAMES P. KEANE, SR., Calendar 05
Defendant.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
THIS CAUSE, coming on to be heard for a status hearing, and Plaintiff having
advised the Court that it will not seek further amendment of its Complaint;
5/31/2018 8:49 AM
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
2017-CH-05559
PAGE 9 of 9
1. The Court having previously dismissed Plaintiffs Amended Complaint at

Chancery on May 1,2018, this matter is now dismissed with prejudice.
2. This is a final and appealable order under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 303.
ENTERED
ENTERED:
MAY "9 2018

>.-.w««N
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
Judge Neil H. Cohen

Order Prepared By:
Kenneth J. Vanko
Emily L. Langhenry
Attorney No. 39631
Lisle, IL 60532
630.871.2600
vanko®ccmlawyer.corn
langhenrv@ccmlawyer.com
!<mw<«.wk.do<:x /v. I
A47
Table of Contents
APPEAL TO THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COOK JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

Plaintiff/Petitioner Reviewing Court No: 1-18-1126
Circuit Court No: 2017CH005559
Trial Judge: NEIL COHEN
v.
JAMES P. KEANE, SR.

Defendant/Respondent
COMMON LAW RECORD - TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page 1 of 2
Date Filed Title/Description Page No.

07/30/2018 DocketList C 4-C 7
04/18/2017 COMPLAINT C 8-C 15
04/18/2017 SUMMONS C 16
05/08/2017 SUMMONS C 17-C 19
05/15/2017 ALIAS SUMMONS C 20
06/07/2017 ALIAS SUMMONS C 21-C 23
06/19/2017 MOTION SPINDLED C 24-C 26
06/19/2017 MOTION SPECIAL PROCESS SERVER C 27-C 28
06/27/2017 MOTION SPECIAL PROCESS SERVER C 29-C 30
06/27/2017 ORDER C 31
07/07/2017 AFFIDAVITF OF SERVICE C 32
07/07/2017 NOTICE OF FILING C 33-C 34
07/10/2017 ENOTICE SENT C 35
08/02/2017 APPEARANCE C 36
08/02/2017 MOTION FOR EXTENSION C 37-C 39
08/04/2017 MOTION FOR EXTENSION C 40-C 47
08/16/2017 ORDER C 48
08/30/2017 MOTION TO DISMISS C 49-C 55
09/11/2017 ORDER C 65
09/25/2017 RESPONSE MOTION TO DISMISS C 66-C 74
09/25/2017 NOTICE OF FILING C 75-C 76
This document is generated by eappeal.net
DOROTHY BROWN, CLERK OF THE COOK JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT ©

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602
A48
C 2
Table of Contents
COMMON LAW RECORD - TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page 2 of 2
Date Filed Title/Description Page No.

10/18/2017 RESPOSNE MOTION TO DISMISS C 77-C 84
10/23/2017 ORDER C 85
11/15/2017 MEMORANDUM ORDER C 86-C 89
11/20/2017 ORDER C 90
12/15/2017 ORDER C 91
01/16/2018 MOTION FOR LEAVE C 92-C 134
01/19/2018 ORDER C 135
01/23/2018 AMENDED COMPLAINT C 136-C 168
02/28/2018 NOTICE OF MOTION C 178-C 179
03/06/2018 ORDER C 180
03/23/2018 RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS C 181-C 195
04/06/2018 RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS C 196-C 204
04/16/2018 ORDER C 205
05/01/2018 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER C 206-C 209
05/09/2018 ORDER C 210
05/31/2018 NOTICE OF APPEAL C 211-C 219
06/07/2018 REQUEST TO PREPARE C 220-C 221
DOROTHY BROWN, CLERK OF THE COOK JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT ©

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602
A49
C 3
No. 1-18-1126
IN THE APPELLATE COURT

STATE OF ILLINOIS

) Appeal from the Circuit Court of
Plaintiff-Appellant, ) the Cook County
)
v. ) Cook County, Illinois
) Case No. 2017 CH 05559
JAMES P. KEANE, SR. )
) Judge Neil H. Cohen
)
NOTICE OF FILING
To: Eric P. Sparks

Justin W. Hanson
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 5, 2018, we electronically filed with the
Clerk of the Appellate Court, First Judicial District, Illinois: Brief of Plaintiff-
Appellant, a true and correct copy of which is attached and hereby served upon you.

Kenneth J. Vanko
(630) 871-2600
vanko@ccmlawyer.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby states that she served the referenced documents to the
parties listed in the attached service list via e-mail and regular mail on October 5, 2018.
By: /s/ Angela Burza

Appellant&#39;s Brief FILED 10.5.18 (00431492xAF516)

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Appellant&#39;s Brief FILED 10.5.18 (00431492xAF516)

Caricato da

Copyright:

E-FILED

Transaction ID: 1-18-1126

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

Nature of the Action ......................................................................................................... 1

(“Keane”). In its Amended Complaint at Chancery, AMG alleged Keane was

economic advantage arising from his conduct in acquiring a competing business

while still a key AMG employee. (C. 138-51; A8-21).

On May 1, 2018, the circuit court, in a Memorandum and Order, dismissed

of the circuit court’s with-prejudice dismissal of both causes of action in the

Amended Complaint. (C. 211-19; A39-47).

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

The issues presented for review are

Supreme Court Rules 301 and 303.

in the Amended Complaint.

AMG is a marketing services company, providing letter-shop and fulfillment

those titles when he resigned. (Id.)

Keane’s Pre-Resignation Purchase of a Competitor

On the afternoon of September 4, 2015, Keane resigned from AMG “effective

immediately.” (Id.) Keane delivered his resignation notice by email to Patty

registered a new domain name with the extension “mailhousedm.com,” along

Keane’s Failure to Disclose the Acquisition Opportunity

At no point in 2015 did Keane disclose to Hermann or AMG that he sought to

business. (Id.) AMG never consented to or approved Keane’s appropriation of

the business. (Id.)

Keane’s Strategic and Acquisition Responsibilities at AMG

AMG with wide-ranging responsibilities. (C. 140-41; A10-11). Keane’s duties

were equivalent to those of an officer, in that he:

• consistently held himself out to third parties as an AMG owner

• received a bonus equivalent to any that Hermann took;

• was responsible for developing and maintaining AMG’s financial

• listed himself by name on Cook County’s published vendor

• was the face of AMG to many repeat customers over which he

often did explore—strategic acquisitions, including the purchase of competing

received, then disclosed to Hermann, and later evaluated with Hermann as

Hermann reasonably expected Keane to present to AMG for full consideration.

cultivated. (C. 144; A14).

Keane’s Related Pre-Resignation Conduct

confidential client material that belonged to AMG. (Id.)

The Circuit Court’s Dismissal Order

dismissal final the next week, on May 9. (C. 210; A5).

court’s grant of a Section 2-615 motion to dismiss was proper. Weatherman v.

those facts, and accepts them as true. Id.

In Count I of the Amended Complaint, AMG sued Keane for breach of

fiduciary duty stemming from the misappropriation of a corporate opportunity.

opportunity to AMG before he resigned?

belongs to the corporation by which he is employed.” Mullaney, Wells & Co. v.

facts, any opportunity “reasonably incident” to the principal’s present or

rule’s “prophylactic purpose” forecloses a fiduciary “from exploiting the

tender obligation. Id.

opportunity doctrine, apply it to the factual allegations, or cite either Kerrigan or

duty law. Lawlor, 2012 IL 112530, at ¶ 69 (stating “[e]mployees as well as officers

another, a fiduciary relationship exists as a matter of law.”).

AMG during the period leading to his resignation. It reasoned:

The Amended Complaint fails to allege any facts that

(C. 208; A3).

extends beyond just a discrete subset of corporate fiduciaries. Savage, 78 Ill. 2d at

opportunities to AMG for its consideration upon all material facts.

By failing to apply the relevant corporate opportunity standards, the circuit

job title alone.

B. The corporate opportunity doctrine’s parameters depend on the scope of

the substantive principles of agency, contract, and equity.” Armstrong v. Guigler,

statement is a plain-English reformulation of what Savage says: fiduciary rules

depend on agency law.

dismissing AMG’s initial Complaint at Chancery, the circuit court seemed to

AMG.” (C. 88).

Appellant's Brief FILED 10.5.18 (00431492xAF516)

Appellant's Brief FILED 10.5.18 (00431492xAF516)