Heyl Royster

Business & Commercial Litigation

Focusing on the effective resolution of business disputes.

Heyl Royster is a law firm that rejects a one size fits all approach to commercial litigation. Our focus begins and ends with your organization’s goals and security. Our commercial litigation attorneys work as a team with our business clients to develop a flexible, cost-effective, individualized approach. Early case evaluation and budgeting will help you understand the potential costs and benefits associated with a given litigation. We counsel our clients based on the law, the forum, and our wealth of experience. When advantageous for our clients, we work in tandem with the attorneys in the firm, establishing a multidisciplinary approach to focus on specific business sectors.

The effective resolution of business disputes is a significant focus of Heyl Royster's practice. Our commercial clients range in scale from sole proprietorships to Fortune 500 corporations. Our experience encompasses all aspects of commercial litigation and dispute resolution, whether in state and federal courts or before administrative tribunals in almost every area of substantive business law.

Depending on the need, we routinely represent our business clients as both plaintiffs and defendants. We also represent clients in high-profile cases where the dollar exposure is small, but the case precedent has potentially game-changing implications. We handle many cases where non-monetary relief is the primary goal. In any matter, we provide sophisticated representation. Our ultimate goal is for you to achieve your business objectives promptly and cost-effectively.



  • Business breakups
  • Business torts
  • Contractual disputes
  • Covenants not to compete
  • Creditors’ rights and bankruptcy
  • Eminent domain 
  • Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
  • Fraud and misrepresentation
  • Intellectual property claims
  • Lender liability
  • Public and private nuisances
  • Real estate
  • Shareholder disputes
  • Unfair competition
  • Zoning disputes



With a team of experienced civil litigation attorneys and a multi-disciplinary approach to resolving your commercial legal disputes, Heyl Royster is unlike any other commercial litigation defense firm. From banking and financial matters to eminent domain and copyright claims, you can trust our business and commercial law attorneys to provide you with the expert legal representation your case deserves.

Heyl Royster Is Ready To Help With Your Business Or Commercial Dispute

Contact One Of Our Skilled Attorneys Today!



D.R. v. Individual Realtor and Realty Company (2017) – Obtained defense verdict for a real estate agent in a jury trial in which the plaintiff claimed damages related to representations made in the course of the purchase of a home. One year after purchasing the home, the plaintiff experienced a septic tank failure that resulted in damage to his basement. The plaintiff claimed that he was unaware that a septic tank serviced the home and that the agent misrepresented that the home was connected to the city sewer. The court granted summary judgment prior to trial on the plaintiff's claims of fraudulent concealment, breach of contract, and professional malpractice. The judge granted the firm's motion to strike a negligence per se count at trial. Following trial, the jury entered a defense verdict on the fraudulent misrepresentation count, and the judge entered judgment in favor of the defendants regarding counts relating to the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and breach of fiduciary duty claims.

United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Roth, 11-CV-02079, 2014 WL 12738111 (C.D. Ill. Jan. 15, 2014) – Acting as federal court-appointed Receiver in a case arising from a 16.5 million dollar securities fraud case.

United States v. Zabka, 900 F. Supp. 2d 864 (C.D. Ill. 2012) – Acting as federal court-appointed equity receiver in a federal tax case.

Hartney Fuel Oil Company v. Hamer, 2013 IL 115130, 998 N.E.2d 1227 – Suit was filed by a retail sales taxpayer against our client, The Regional Transportation Authority (RTA), the Illinois Department of Revenue, and a Cook County municipality contending that the assessment of back sales taxes of $20+ million was incorrect. Ultimately, the RTA's position was upheld in the Illinois Supreme Court. While the taxpayer was not required to pay back taxes pursuant to the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, the Illinois Supreme Court invalidated existing regulations in adopting a "multi-factor test," as argued by the RTA. This decision applied statewide to sales tax sourcing favoring governmental entities such as our client.

Witters v. Hicks, 335 Ill. App. 3d 435, 780 N.E.2d 713 (5th Dist. 2002) – In the Circuit Court we represented the plaintiffs on a shareholder's fiduciary duty claim against other shareholder/officer requesting dissolution of business and damages; judgment for dissolution and $22.5 million in damages for plaintiffs (our clients) and receiver. Settled on appeal. Several interlocutory appeals established law in state receivership areas.

Keach v. U.S. Trust Co., 419 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 2005) – ERISA claim seeking $200 million in damages; judgment after trial for defendants (including our clients), affirmed on appeal.

Platinum Jet Center BMI, LLC v. Bloomington Normal Airport Authority, Circuit Court, McLean County, Illinois, Case No. 06 CH 381 – Plaintiff FBO sought $6 million in damages from the defendant airport alleging contractual breach; judgment after a jury trial against the defendant (our client) for $8,500. No appeal was taken.

Rosewood Care Center, Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc., 226 Ill. 2d 559 (2007) – Illinois Supreme Court adopted our argument, explicitly rejecting the "pre-existing debt rule" under the statute of frauds and adopting of the "main purpose" or "leading object" rule. 

Morton Community Bank v. Nash-Hasty Investments, Circuit Court, Tazewell County, Illinois, Case No. 98 L 133, and NASD Arbitration No. 98-03671 – Represented two stockbrokers against a bank in the successful arbitration of a covenant not to compete before the National Association of Securities Dealers.

Ridenour v. Kaiser-Hill Co., 397 F.3d 925 (10th Cir. 2005) – Successful defense of government contractor in False Claims Act appeal averting revelation of classified information and adopting the Sequoia standard of review.

Fritz v. Weather Shield Manufacturing, Inc. – Plaintiffs sued our defendant for breach of contract and breach of warranty regarding windows used in the construction of the plaintiffs' home. The plaintiffs sought both replacement costs and compensatory damages of $60,000. Our defendant's motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim and claim for compensatory damages based on the limitations of the expressed warranty was granted. At trial, the verdict was entered in favor of our defendant on the breach of a warranty claim.

Koester v. Amergen, 06-3124, 2008 WL 879459 (C.D. Ill. Mar. 28, 2008) – Plaintiff sued Defendant (our client) for an alleged radiation injury, alleging unspecified damages. Summary judgment for our client based on failure to establish a duty owed, breach, or causation.

Pfister Hybrid v. Seidl, Circuit Court, Woodford County, Illinois, Case No. 02 LM 69 – Our client bought seed corn for which delivery was delayed. Our client then had unused seed returned. A contractual suit ensued. Jury trial with a defense verdict for our client.

Cripe v. Leiter, 184 Ill. 2d 185, 703 N.E.2d 100 (1998) – In a case of first impression, the Illinois Supreme Court held that Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act did not apply to claim that the attorney charged excessive fees.

Neziroski v. Von Maur, Circuit Court, Illiniois, Case No. 99 L 121 – Jury trial involving false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution claims arising out of an unusual transaction at the Bloomington Von Maur Store. Plaintiff asked for more than $250,000. Verdict for plaintiff in the amount of $50,000.

Department of Transportation v. Parr, 259 Ill. App. 3d 602, 633 N.E.2d 19 (3d Dist. 1994) – In a case of first impression, our argument that environmental remediation costs are not admissible in eminent domain actions to reduce the fair market value of the property of the condemnee (our client) was upheld.

Redarowicz v. Ohlendorf, 92 Ill. 2d 171, 441 N.E.2d 324 (1982) – In a case of first impression in Illinois, the Illinois Supreme Court adopted our argument that a home builder vendor's implied warranty of habitability does not extend solely to the first purchaser but also to subsequent purchasers.

© 2024 Heyl Royster. All Rights Reserved.