Tregenza v. Lehman Bros., Inc., 678 N.E.2d 14 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
Tregenza v. Lehman Bros., Inc., 678 N.E.2d 14 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
57 citation events (46 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Green Dolphin Capital LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (ilnd, 2020-09-16)
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Green Dolphin Capital LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
N.D. Ill. · 2020 · confidence medium
For example, in Tregenza v. Lehman Brothers, the Illinois Appellate Court held that common law breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation claims brought by a stock purchaser against the seller of that stock were subject to the ISL’s three-year statute of limitations even though plaintiff did not plead a claim under the ISL because the “causes of action are reliant upon matters for which relief is granted by the Securities Law.” 678 N.E.2d 14, 15 (Ill.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Orgone Capital III, LLC v. Keith Daubenspeck (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
7th Cir. · 2019 · confidence medium
Klein, 500 F.3d at 671 (citing Tregenza v. Lehman Brothers, Inc., 678 N.E.2d 14, 15 (Ill.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Menzies v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP
N.D. Ill. · 2018 · confidence medium
See Klein, 500 F.3d at 671 (holding that fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims fall under the ISL); Tregenza v. Lehman Bros., 678 N.E.2d 14, 15 (Ill.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Orgone Capital III, LLC v. Daubenspeck
N.D. Ill. · 2018 · confidence medium
App. 3d 108, 110 , 678 N.E.2d 14, 15 (1st Dist. 1997).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wilhelm v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc.
7th Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
Relying on this provision, the Illinois Court of Appeals has held that the ISL’s limitations period applies to a stock purchaser’s complaint for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and negligent misrepresentation arising out of the sale of stock because such “causes of action are reliant ‘upon ... matters for which relief is granted’ by the Securities Law.” Tregenza v. Lehman Bros., Inc., 287 Ill.App.3d 108 , 222 Ill.Dec. 607 , 678 N.E.2d 14, 15 (1997) (quoting 815 Ill.
discussed Cited "see" Wu v. Kallies
N.D. Ill. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tregenza v. Lehman Bros., 287 Ill.
examined Cited "see" Allstate Insurance v. Countrywide Financial Corp. (6×)
C.D. Cal. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tregenza, 287 Ill.App.3d, at 109-10 , 222 Ill.Dec. 607 , 678 N.E.2d 14 .
discussed Cited "see" Klein, Michael P. v. George G. Kerasotes (2×)
7th Cir. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tregenza v. Lehman Brothers, Inc., 678 N.E.2d 14, 15 (Ill.
examined Cited "see" Klein v. George G. Kerasotes Corp. (5×)
7th Cir. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tregenza v. Lehman Brothers, Inc., 287 Ill.App.3d 108 , 222 Ill.Dec. 607 , 678 N.E.2d 14, 15 (1997).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Steven Menzies v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP
7th Cir. · 2019 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Tregenza v. Lehman Bros., Inc., 678 N.E.2d 14, 15 (Ill.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Steven Menzies v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP
7th Cir. · 2019 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Tregenza v. Lehman Bros., Inc., 678 N.E.2d 14, 15 (Ill.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Orgone Capital III, LLC v. Keith Daubenspeck (2×)
7th Cir. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence low
STAT. 5/13-205 (restricting five-year statute of limitations to "civil actions not otherwise provided for"); see also Tregenza, 222 Ill.Dec. 607 , 678 N.E.2d at 15 (holding that the plaintiff's action "is a cause otherwise provided for" under the Illinois securities law, and that five-year limitations period in § 5/13-205 is inapplicable) (internal quotations omitted).
cited Cited "see, e.g." City of Chicago ex rel. Scachitti v. Prudential Securities, Inc.
Ill. App. Ct. · 2002 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g. , Tregenza v. Lehman Bros. , 287 Ill.
cited Cited "see, e.g." City of Chicago Ex Rel. Scachitti v. Prudential Securities, Inc.
Ill. App. Ct. · 2002 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Tregenza v. Lehman Brothers, Inc., 287 Ill.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
W. KENNETH TREGENZA, on Behalf of Himself and a Class of Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LEHMAN BROTHERS, INC., Defendant-Appellee
1-95-1631.
Appellate Court of Illinois.
Mar 5, 1997.
678 N.E.2d 14
Terrence Buehler and Robert E. Williams, both of Susman, Buehler & Watkins, of Chicago, for appellant., H. Nicholas Berberian, Robert J. Mandel, Terry D. Weissman, and Tina E. Levin, all of Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg, of Chicago, for appellee.
Cahill.
Cited by 18 opinions  |  Published
JUSTICE CAHILL

delivered the opinion of the court:

We review a complaint alleging common law causes of action arising out of a securities transaction. The trial court found that the action was time-barred by the three-year statute of limitations in the Illinois Securities Law of 1953. 815 ILCS 5/13(D) (West 1992). Plaintiff argues that since his complaint does not rely on the Securities Law, the five-year statute of limitations set out in section 13—205 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/13—205 (West 1992)) should apply. We affirm.

Plaintiff W. Kenneth Tregenza purchased stock from defendant Lehman Brothers, Inc., on October 11, 1989, through May 7, 1990. Plaintiff then sued defendant on September 29, 1994, for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation arising out of the sale of the stock. Defendant moved for dismissal under sections 2—615 and 2—619 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2—615, 2—619 (West 1992)). The trial court granted defendant’s motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

The facts allegedly supporting the claims in this case are set out in Tregenza v. Great American Communications Co., 823 F. Supp. 1409 (N.D. Ill. 1993). Since we dispose of this complaint on the basis of the three-year statute of limitations under the Illinois Securities Law of 1953, we need not repeat the facts here. Plaintiff’s federal cause of action was dismissed because it was barred by the federal statute of limitations. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Tregenza v. Great American Communications Co., 12 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff then filed a three-count complaint in the circuit court of Cook County that alleged two new causes of action: breach of fiduciary duty in count I, and fraud in count II. In count III he also brought a claim for negligent misrepresentation, previously brought in federal court.

The trial court dismissed counts I and II on res judicata grounds because the counts violated the rule against claim splitting. The court found in the alternative that the entire complaint was barred by the three-year limitations period set out in section 13(D) of the Illinois Securities Law of 1953. 815 ILCS 5/13(D) (West 1992). Since we find that the complaint is barred by the three-year statute of limitations under the Illinois Securities Law, we need not reach the res judicata argument.

Plaintiff argues that the complaint was not barred by the statute of limitations. He contends that a five-year statute of limitations applies under section 13—205 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure. 735 ILCS 5/13—205 (West 1992). We disagree.

Section 13—205 provides that the causes of action set out therein "and all civil actions not otherwise provided for” are governed by a five-year statute of limitations. 735 ILCS 5/13—205 (West 1992). But plaintiff’s action is a cause "otherwise provided for.” The Illinois Securities Law provides: "No action shall be brought for relief under this Section or upon or because of any of the matters for which relief is granted by this Section after 3 years from the date of sale ***.” (Emphasis added.) 815 ILCS 5/13(D) (West 1992).

Plaintiff argues that there is no "principled basis” for imposing a three-year statute of limitations. On the contrary, the seventh circuit in Tregenza articulated the principled basis for a shorter statute in federal securities cases, one even more stringent than Illinois law.

"Three years is an age in the stock market. If the suspicious investor had a wide choice of times at which to sue within a three-year period rather than being required to sue no more than one year after the earliest possible date, the opportunistic use of federal securities law to protect investors against market risk would be magnified. These plaintiffs waited patiently to sue. If the stock rebounded from the cellar they would have investment profits, and if it stayed in the cellar they would have legal damages. Heads I win, tails you lose.” Tregenza, 12 F.3d at 722.

While plaintiff does not seek relief under the Securities Law, his causes of action are reliant "upon *** matters for which relief is granted” by the Securities Law. We find that the three-year statute under the Illinois Securities Law, rather than the five-year limitations period under section 13—205 of the Code of Civil Procedure, applies to plaintiff’s cause of action.

Affirmed.

HOFFMAN, P.J., and THEIS, J., concur.