Lewis v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc.

2 Citing cases

  1. Hill v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co.

    166 Cal.App.4th 1438 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 14 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Applying Illinois law in the context of a nationwide class action alleging that a mutual insurance company breached a duty to pay dividends by retaining excessive surplus and emphasizing the broad discretion directors have to make business judgments about capital retention and distributions to policyholders

    Rather, fraud requires "evidence of improper motives on the part of the Board members." ( Lewis v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc. (1996) 279 Ill.App.3d 47, 55 [215 Ill.Dec. 736, 742, 664 N.E.2d 133, 139].) In Kelly v. Bell (Del.Ch. 1969) 254 A.2d 62, affirmed sub nom.

  2. Jahn v. Kinderman

    351 Ill. App. 3d 15 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004)   Cited 8 times

    The plaintiffs make no argument which illustrates the trial court's error in determining that the defendants' various actions were innocently motivated business decisions. Nor do they indicate any rationale for a finding that innocently motivated business decisions can nevertheless constitute breaches of the fiduciary's duties of good faith, loyalty and care. Lewis v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc., 279 Ill. App. 3d 47, 57-58 (1996). We accordingly affirm the trial court's dismissal of count III of the plaintiffs' complaint.