ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS

Appellate Court

Khan v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 2012 IL App (4th) 120359

Appellate Court

Caption

SHAHID R. KHAN;ANNC.KHAN; UVIADOLLC;JONCTION, LLC;

and LEMAN, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BDO SEIDMAN, LLP; and

MICHAEL COLLINS, Defendants-Appellees, and GRAMERCY

ADVISORS, LLC; GRAMERCY ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC;

GRAMERCY FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC; TALLSHIPS CAPITAL

MANAGEMENT, LLC; JAY A. JOHNSTON; MARC HELIE;

DECASTRO, WEST, CHODOROW, GLICKFIELD & NASS, INC.;

FINANCIAL STRATEGY GROUP, PLC; and PAUL SHANBROM,

Defendants.–SHAHID R. KHAN; ANN C. KHAN; SRK WILSHIRE

INVESTMENTS,LLC;SRKWILSHIREPARTNERS; SRKWILSHIRE

INVESTORS, INC.; THERMOSPHERE FX PARTNERS, LLC; and

KPASA, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BDO SEIDMAN, LLP; and

MICHAEL COLLINS, Defendants-Appellees, and DEUTSCHE BANK

AG; DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES, INC., d/b/a DEUTSCHE

BANK; ALEX BROWN; DAVID PARSE; EQUILIBRIUM

CURRENCY TRADING, LLC; SAMYAK VEERA; GRANT

THORNTON, LLP; GRAMERCY ADVISORS, LLC; JAY A.

JOHNSTON; MARC HELIE; and PAUL SHANBROM, Defendants.

District & No. Fourth District

Docket Nos. 4-12-0359, 4-12-0360 cons.

Filed October 17, 2012

Held

(Note: This syllabus

constitutes no part of

the opinion of the court

but has been prepared

by the Reporter of

Decisions for the

convenience of the

reader.)

The stay of proceedings entered by the trial court in an action arising from

the consulting agreement between the parties was modified to eliminate

the stay until the breach-of-contract claims against some defendants were

arbitrated and to continue the stay for the duration of the appeal to the

supreme court filed by defendant who prepared plaintiffs’ income tax

returns, since the breach-of-contract claims based on tax advice and

investment advicewere specificallydisclaimed bythe parties’ agreement.
Decision Under 

Review

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Champaign County, Nos. 09-L-139, 09-

L-140; the Hon. Jeffrey B. Ford, Judge, presiding.

Judgment Affirmed as modified.

Counsel on

Appeal

David R. Deary (argued) and Carol E. Farquhar, both of Loewinsohn

Flegle Deary, LLP, of Dallas, Texas, and James D. Green, of Thomas,

Mamer & Haughey, LLP, of Champaign, for appellants. 

Michael S. Poulos, Andrew R. Gifford, Mark A. Bradford, and Raja

Gaddipati, all of DLA Piper LLP (US), of Chicago, and Cary B.

Samowitz (argued), of DLA Piper LLP (US), of New York, New York,

for appellees.

Panel JUSTICE APPLETON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

Justices Pope and McCullough concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

¶ 1 The plaintiffs in these two consolidated appeals are Shahid R. Khan and his spouse, Ann

C. Khan, along with various partnerships and limited-liability companies that Shahid R.

Khan formed, allegedly on the advice of BDO Seidman, LLC (BDO), for the purpose of

creating tax shelters. Thermosphere FX Partners, LLC (Thermosphere), is one of the

partnerships. (Whenever we refer to “Khan” in the singular, we will mean Shahid R. Khan,

because, according to the complaint, he was the one who transacted all the business with

BDO and the other defendants.) The only defendants who are parties to these two appeals,

the only appellees, are BDO and one of its employees, Michael Collins. (When referring

collectively to BDO and its employees named in these actions, we will call them the “BDO

defendants.”) Plaintiffs have sued BDO, Collins, and other persons and business entities for

leading plaintiffs into some flawed “tax-advantaged investment strategies.”

¶ 2 Plaintiffs have been before us twice before in this litigation. Khan v. BDO Seidman, LLP,

404 Ill. App. 3d 892 (2010) (Khan I); Khan v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 408 Ill. App. 3d 564

(2011) (Khan II). In Khan I, we decided which of plaintiffs’ claims against the BDO

defendants had to be arbitrated pursuant to plaintiffs’ written “consulting agreement” with

-2-
BDO. We held that only the claims for breach of contract came within the scope of the

arbitration clause. Khan I, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 895. The Supreme Court of Illinois has denied

BDO’s petition for leave to appeal from our judgment in Khan I (Khan v. BDO Seidman,

LLP, 239 Ill. 2d 555 (2011) (table)), and the Supreme Court of the United States has denied

BDO’s petition for a writ of certiorari (BDO Seidman, LLP v. Khan, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.

Ct. 96 (2011)). Thus, Khan I has reached finality in the appellate process.

¶ 3 The appellate process is not yet exhausted in Khan II–but first let us recount what Khan

II is all about. In Khan II, we rejected the contention that plaintiffs’ claims against Deutsche

Bank AG; Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.; and an accounting firm, Grant Thornton LLP,

were barred by statutes of limitations and a statute of repose. Khan II, 408 Ill. App. 3d at 566.

(We will refer to Deutsche Bank, Deutsche Securities, and their employees as the “Deutsche

Bank defendants.”) Those three defendants in Khan II petitioned the supreme court for leave

to appeal. The supreme court granted their petitions and consolidated their appeals. Khan v.

BDO Seidman, LLP, Nos. 112219, 112221, cons. (Sept. 28, 2011). On March 20, 2012, the

supreme court heard oral arguments in the consolidated appeals, and its decision is pending.

¶ 4 On March 14, 2012, on remand from our decisions in Khan I and Khan II, the trial court

granted motions byBDO and Collins to stay the trial court proceedings until (1) the supreme

court issued its decision in Grant Thornton’s appeal and (2) plaintiffs’ claims of breach of

contract were arbitrated. Plaintiffs disagree with this stay. They appeal pursuant to Illinois

Supreme Court Rule 307(a)(1) (eff. Feb. 26, 2010).

¶ 5 We find no abuse of discretion in staying the trial court proceedings until the supreme

court issues its opinion in Grant Thornton’s appeal. We find an abuse of discretion, however,

in staying the proceedings until the claims of breach of contract are arbitrated, considering

that after our analysis in Khan I, little or nothing of the breach-of-contract claims is left.

Therefore, we modify the stay so as to make it last only for the duration of Grant Thornton’s

appeal to the supreme court. We affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified and remand

this case for further proceedings subject to the stay–which the trial court, in its discretion,

may eventually lift if it finds that Grant Thornton’s appeal is not proceeding with sufficient

dispatch.

¶ 6 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 7 In Champaign County case Nos. 09-L-139 and 09-L-140, plaintiffs brought actions

against the BDO defendants; the DeutscheBank defendants; Grant Thornton, LLP; and other

persons and business entities for duping plaintiffs into setting up tax shelters that the Internal

Revenue Service (IRS) regarded as abusive and illegal. According to the complaints in the

two cases, these tax shelters were designed to follow, at least ostensibly, a two-pronged

strategy–“Plan A” and “Plan B,” so to speak. First, in Plan A, Khan was to make an

“investment,” by which, the BDO defendants told him, he stood a good chance of making

a profit. It is unclear how much Khan understood about this “investment,” but it was a bet

with Deutsche Bank on what a certain foreign currency would be worth on a certain date. If

Khan lost money in this “investment,” he was not to worry, because Plan B would kick in

and that very loss would be put to lucrative use. Through some transfers between

-3-
partnerships and limited-liability companies specially created for this purpose, Khan would

be able to use the “investment” loss as a tax loss, to reduce his federal income tax. Not just

one but a series of these tax shelters was created.

¶ 8 Both prongs of this “tax-advantaged investment strategy” were a falsehood, plaintiffs

allege. For one thing, the “investments” were designed to ensure that Khan would lose

money (and that the broker, Deutsche Bank, would make money), and further, plaintiffs

allege, it should have been apparent to anyone with a reasonable degree of competence in tax

law that the IRS would disallow the claimed tax losses as a sham–and then impose large

penalties for the overdue income tax. The strategies appear to be variations on the “Son of

BOSS” plan, which, reduced to its essence, works this way. X pays Y, say, a million dollars.

Y pays X a million dollars. X counts the million dollars he paid Y as a tax loss without

offsetting it by the million dollars Y paid him. See 106 Ltd. v. Commissioner of Internal

Revenue Service, 684 F.3d 84, 86 (D.C. Cir. 2012). In their complaints in the two cases,

plaintiffs raised a varietyof legal theories, e.g., fraud, negligent misrepresentation,fraudulent

concealment of a cause of action, rescission, an illusory contract, and (as an alternative to the

theories of rescission and an illusory contract) breach of contract.

¶ 9 Some of the defendants raised affirmative defenses. The BDO defendants invoked an

arbitration agreement between BDO and Khan. Khan I, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 894. The Deutsche

Bank defendants invoked the statute of limitations in section 13-205 of the Code of Civil

Procedure (735 ILCS 5/13-205 (West 2008)). Khan II, 408 Ill. App. 3d at 566. Grant

Thornton invoked the statute of limitations in section 13-214.2(a) (735 ILCS 5/13-214.2(a)

(West 2008)), as well as the statute of repose in section 13-214.2(b)(735 ILCS 5/13-214.2(b)

(West 2008)). Khan II, 408 Ill. App. 3d at 566.

¶ 10 In Khan I, we considered the BDO defendants’ affirmative defense that all of plaintiffs’

claims against them had to be arbitrated.

¶ 11 In Khan II, we considered, inter alia, the affirmative defenses of the Deutsche Bank

defendants and Grant Thornton that plaintiffs’ claims against them were time-barred.

¶ 12 A. The Scope of the Arbitration Clause (Khan I)

¶ 13 In preparation for each of the “investments,” which were supposed to yield a profit for

Khan or, alternatively, a loss that, after being passed through partnerships, would reduce his

federal income-tax liability, BDO required Khan’s signature on “consulting agreements,”

each of which contained an identically worded arbitration clause. Khan I, 404 Ill. App. 3d

at 893, 910. The trial court held that all of plaintiffs’ claims against the BDO defendants

came within the scope of this arbitration clause. Id. at 894.

¶ 14 Plaintiffs appealed, and in Khan I we affirmed the trial court’s judgment in part and

reversed it in part, concluding that, by its terms, the arbitration clause covered only plaintiffs’

alternative claims against the BDO defendants for breach of contract. Id. at 895. (Justice

Turner dissented in part: he was of the opinion that the arbitration clause covered not just the

claims of breach of contract but all the claims against the BDO defendants: tort claims and

contract claims alike. Id. at 920 (Turner, J., specially concurring in part and dissenting in

part).)

-4-
¶ 15 In our analysis in Khan I, two features of the consulting agreement led us to the

conclusion that the arbitration clause covered onlythe claims for breach of contract. (We will

refer to “the consulting agreement” in the singular because the consulting agreements were

“identical in their germane provisions.” Id. at 894.) The first feature was the wording of the

arbitration clause itself. The arbitration clause said: “ ‘If any dispute, controversy or claim

arises in connection with the performance or breach of this agreement and cannot be

resolved by facilitated negotiations (or the parties agree to waive that process) then such

dispute, controversy or claim shall be settled by arbitration ***.’ ” (Emphasis added.) Id. at

911. We observed that, in its wording, this arbitration clause was “more narrow than the

typical arbitration clause, such as the one in [Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg.

Co., 388 U.S. 395, 398 (1967)], which referred to ‘ “any controversy or claim arising out of

or relating to this Agreement.” ’ ” Id. at 913. The arbitration clause in the consulting

agreement between BDO and Khan “contemplate[d] the arbitration of a narrower class of

claims–those relating to the performance of the agreement–not claims relating to the

agreement.” Id. at 913-14 (citing Midwest Window Systems, Inc. v. Amcor Industries, Inc.,

630 F.2d 535, 537 (7th Cir. 1980)).

¶ 16 The second significant feature of the consulting agreement was the language specifically

excluding certain activities from BDO’s promised performance. The consulting agreement

said: “ ‘BDO is not in the business of providing investment advice or services, thus, none of

the services to be rendered are to be considered as investment advice, and it is understood

that the Client is not relying upon BDO for investment advice or services.’ ” (Emphasis

omitted.) Khan I, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 914. Also, the consulting agreement said: “ ‘BDO’s

Services hereunder do not include, and BDO assumes no responsibility whatsoever for, any

legal and/or tax opinions regarding any strategies that may be implemented, and has advised

the Client to retain a law firm for legal and/or tax opinions on any strategies or transactions

they [sic] enter into.’ ” Id. at 897.

¶ 17 Thus, the consulting agreement specifically excluded investment advice and tax advice

from BDO’s promised performance. Those exclusions were significant for purposes of

arbitrability, because, according to the various counts in plaintiffs’ complaints, BDO’s bad

investment advice and bad tax advice (or the bad tax advice of law firms with which BDO

was in cahoots) were the proximate causes of plaintiffs’ damages. BDO advised Khan that

he could make money in the “investments” (id. at 895), whereas, in reality, the “investments”

were structured so as to ensure that he would lose money (id. at 898-99). BDO assured him

that if he lost money in the “investments,” he could claim tax losses (id. at 895), and BDO

sent him to supposedly independent but actually compromised law firms to obtain

confirmation of this falsehood through “ ‘pre-wired’ ” legal opinions (id. at 900). Plaintiffs’

allegations that BDO gave Khan this bad investment advice and bad tax advice (or that BDO

deceptively referred him to coconspiring lawyers, bywhich BDO became liable for their bad

tax advice) were outside the scope of the arbitration clause because (1) the consulting

agreement specifically excluded those activities from BDO’s contractual performance and

(2) the arbitration clause covered only claims “ ‘aris[ing] in connection with the performance

or breach of this agreement’ ” (id. at 897). Id. at 916, 919. Of all the claims in plaintiffs’

complaints, which consisted mostly of tort claims, the arbitration clause covered only those

-5-
for breach of contract. Id. at 895. And bad investment advice and bad tax advice could not

possibly be a breach of the contract between plaintiffs and BDO, given the disclaimers in the

consulting agreement.

¶ 18 B. The Statutes of Limitations and Statutes of Repose (Khan II)

¶ 19 In the judgment that we reversed in Khan II, the trial court held that the statute of

limitations in section 13-205 (735 ILCS 5/13-205 (West 2008)) barred the actions against

the Deutsche Bank defendants and that the statute of limitations in section 13-214.2(a) (735

ILCS 5/13-214.2(a) (West 2008)) as well as the statute of repose in section 13-214.2(b) (735

5/13-214.2(b) (West 2008)) barred the actions against Grant Thornton.

¶ 20 We first will recount the trial court’s analysis regarding the Deutsche Bank defendants,

followed by the reasons we gave in Khan II for disagreeing with that analysis. Then we will

recount the trial court’s analysis regarding Grant Thornton, followed by our reasons for

disagreement.

¶ 21 1. The Trial Court’s Analysis Regarding the Deutsche Bank Defendants

¶ 22 Section 13-205 (735 ILCS 5/13-205 (West 2008)) is a five-year statute of limitations,

which applies to actions for common-law fraud and other tortious misrepresentations.

Chicago Park District v. Kenroy, Inc., 78 Ill. 2d 555, 560-61 (1980) (quoting then section

22 of the Limitations Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 83, ¶ 23)). The statute provides: “[A]ll

civil actions not otherwise provided for[ ] shall be commenced within 5 years next after the

cause of action accrued.” (Emphasis added.) 735 ILCS 5/13-205 (West 2008).

¶ 23 Regardless, though, of when a cause of action accrues, the discovery rule postpones the

running of the statute of limitations until the date when the plaintiff knows, or reasonably

should know, that the injury has been wrongfully caused. Khan II, 408 Ill. App. 3d at 596.

This is not to say that the statute of limitations waits until the plaintiff knows, or reasonably

should know, the full extent of the wrongfully caused injury. Id. Rather, the statutory period

begins running just as soon as the plaintiff becomes aware, or reasonably should become

aware, of the existence of some wrongfully caused injury. Id.

¶ 24 According to the trial court, the earliest harm that the Deutsche Bank defendants

wrongfully caused and of which the Khans reasonably should have been aware was the

$1,275,000 they paid Deutsche Bank for “ ‘brokering’ ” the foreign-currency transactions.

Id. at 592, 596. Once the Khans became aware, or once they had notice, that the IRS would

disallow the claimed losses, it should have been apparent to them that they had been misled

into paying this $1,275,000. Id. at 596. The court found that when the Khans hired a tax

attorney in May 2003 to represent them in an IRS audit, they should have discovered that

their payment of the $1,275,000 to the Deutsche Bank defendants had been wrongfully

caused, because their tax attorney, in the exercise of due diligence, should have discovered

the IRS notices rejecting the type of tax-advantaged “investment strategies” that the

coconspiring defendants had foisted on the Khans. Id. Because the Khans filed their

complaint in July 2009, more than five years after May 2003, the court held that the five-year

period of limitation in section 13-205 barred their claims against the Deutsche Bank

-6-
defendants. Id. at 597. (For purposes of its analysis, the court used what appeared to be the

longest applicable statute of limitations. The court ruled out the 10-yearstatute of limitations

in section 13-206 (735 ILCS 5/13-206 (West 2008)) because the court regarded plaintiffs’

contract claims as disguised tort claims and, according to case law, one could not lengthen

the time for filing suit by dressing up a tort claim as a contract claim. Khan II, 408 Ill. App.

3d at 597.)

¶ 25 2. Our Disagreement With the Trial Court’s Analysis

Regarding the Deutsche Bank Defendants

¶ 26 We disagreed with the trial court’s analysis regarding the Deutsche Bank defendants

because, first, in return for the transaction fees that plaintiffs paid the defendants, plaintiffs

were promised either a profit from the “investments” or, alternatively, a tax loss and, second,

regardless of any ominous rumblings from the IRS, plaintiffs were not deprived of their tax

loss until the IRS actually took it away from them by imposing an assessment. Presumably,

in the contemplation of the parties, the payment of $1,275,000 to the Deutsche Bank

defendants would have been worthwhile if, despite the immediate failure of the “investment”

(or, rather, because of it), plaintiffs were able to claim a tax loss. See id. at 607 (“Until the

IRS disallows the loss and, consequently, assesses the deficiency along with the interest and

penalties, the fees that plaintiffs paid to defendants are not yet a waste, because plaintiffs

have not yet been deprived of the contemplated benefit of their bargain, namely, the

alternative benefit of a tax loss.”). In short, Plan B was just as acceptable as Plan A. The

notices that the IRS sent out to the general public did not deprive plaintiffs of their claimed

tax loss. Plaintiffs would not actually lose their tax loss until, in their specific case, the IRS

finally and definitively took it away through an assessment or until plaintiffs settled with the

IRS–a point we gleaned from Federated Industries, Inc. v. Reisin, 402 Ill. App. 3d 23 (2010),

and International Engine Parts, Inc. v. Feddersen & Co., 888 P.2d 1279 (Cal. 1995). Those

authorities taught that a misadvised taxpayer in plaintiffs’ position would not suffer actual

damages, and consequently a cause of action would not accrue, until the earliest of two

events: (1) the IRS made an assessment against the taxpayer (the final step of the IRS’s

assessment process, not to be confused with an earlier step, the issuance of a notice of

deficiency), or (2) the taxpayer agreed with the IRS to pay additional taxes, penalties, or

interest that the taxpayer would not have had to pay but for the tax advisor’s bad advice.

Khan II, 408 Ill. App. 3d at 602. (We should emphasize that, unlike us, the trial court did not

have the benefit of Federated. The First District issued its decision in Federated after the

trial court filed its decision.)

¶ 27 In addition to citing and discussing Federated and Feddersen, we pointed out the danger

of an unjust result if an action for bad tax advice had to be filed before the claim was truly

ripe. If a taxpayer had to file an action against the allegedly negligent tax advisor before the

IRS made an assessment or before the taxpayer agreed to pay the IRS an additional amount,

a fiasco could unfold. The plaintiff could win a money judgment against the tax advisor, and

then, for whatever reason and against all expectation, the IRS could let the deadline go by

for filing an assessment–with the unjust result that the taxpayer would get to keep the tax as

-7-
loss well as the money judgment premised on the now-problematic theory that claiming the

tax loss had caused the taxpayer pecuniary harm. Id. at 601.

¶ 28 The harm from underpaying one’s federal income taxes–the hammer–was an IRS

assessment or, alternatively, a settlement with the IRS. Requiring the taxpayer to file a claim

before that harm happened was tantamount to requiring the taxpayer to file an unripe claim.

Consequently, we concluded that the trial court had erred in dismissing the claims against

the Deutsche Bank defendants as time-barred. Id. at 603. We said:

“Indeed, we hold, as a matter of law, that the actions against those defendants are not

time-barred, given the allegations of the complaint. We find no indication in the

complaint that more than five years (or even two years) have elapsed since an assessment

or settlement with the IRS. Until an assessment or settlement, there was no actual harm

and hence no accrual of a cause of action–even if, by May 2003, it had become

abundantly clear to Khan that defendants had given him false advice. Negligence without

harm does not make a cause of action.” Id.

¶ 29 3. The Trial Court’s Analysis Regarding Grant Thornton

¶ 30 a. The Statute of Limitations in Section 13-214.2(a)

¶ 31 The trial court held that the two-year statute of limitations in section 13-214.2(a) (735

ILCS 5/13-214.2(a) (West 2008)) barred plaintiffs’ claims against Grant Thornton. Section

13-214.2(a) provides: “Actions based upon tort, contract or otherwise against any person,

partnership or corporation registered pursuant to the Illinois Public Accounting Act, as

amended [(225 ILCS 450/0.01 to 32 (West 2008))], or any of its employees, partners,

members, officers or shareholders, for an act or omission in the performance of professional

services shall be commenced within 2 years from the time the person bringing an action

knew or should reasonably have known of such act or omission.” 735 ILCS 5/13-214.2(a)

(West 2008). The court used the same reasoning regarding Grant Thornton that it used

regarding the Deutsche Bank defendants–only the period of limitation for actions against an

accounting firm, such as Grant Thornton, was shorter.

¶ 32 b. The Statute of Repose in Section 13-214.2(b)

¶ 33 In addition to holding that the statute of limitations in section 13-214.2(a) barred

plaintiffs’ claims against Grant Thornton, the trial court held that the statute of repose in

section 13-214.2(b) (735 ILCS 5/13-214.2(b) (West 2008)) likewise barred those claims.

¶ 34 Section 13-214.2(b) provides as follows:

“In no event shall such action be brought more than 5 years after the date on which

occurred the act or omission alleged in such action to have been the cause of the injury

to the person bringing such action against a public accountant. Provided, however, that

in the event that an income tax assessment is made or criminal prosecution is brought

against a person, that person may bring an action against the public accountant who

prepared the tax return within two years from the date of the assessment or conclusion

of the prosecution.” 735 ILCS 5/13-214.2(b) (West 2008).

-8-
¶ 35 Plaintiffs’ only allegation against Grant Thornton was that it had prepared and signed the

federal and state income tax returns for one of the partnerships, Thermosphere, for the year

2000 and that these tax returns had claimed the losses from the “investments.” The error had

flowed into the individual returns of the partners, the Khans, causing them to underpay their

taxes. Khan II, 408 Ill. App. 3d at 575-76. Because the Khans, however, did not file their

complaint until 2009, the trial court held that the five-year statute of repose in section 13-

214.2(b) barred their claims against Grant Thornton. Id. at 609.

¶ 36 The trial court interpreted the “[p]rovided” sentence in section 13-214.2(b) as

“condensing,” rather than lengthening, the five-year period. It appears that, under the trial

court’s interpretation, if the IRS assessed a deficiency or if the plaintiff were prosecuted for

violating a tax law, the plaintiff had lessthan five years after the defendant’s act or omission

to file suit; the plaintiff had to file suit within two years after the assessment or the

conclusion of the prosecution. Id. at 610-11.

¶ 37 4. Our Disagreement With the Trial Court’s Analysis Regarding Grant Thornton

¶ 38 a. The Statute of Limitations in Section 13-214.2(a)

¶ 39 Because the Khans would not suffer any actual harm from the defective income-tax

returns until the IRS assessed a deficiency or the Khans agreed to pay the IRS some

additional amount in settlement of the IRS proceedings on their individual tax returns for

2000, we held that the statute of limitations in section 13-214.2(a) did not bar the actions

against Grant Thornton. Everything we said about “actual harm,” in our discussion regarding

the Deutsche Bank defendants, “applie[d] with equal force to Grant Thornton.” Id. at 604.

¶ 40 Even the attorney fees the Khans had incurred in the IRS audit were merely a potential

harm until the IRS assessed a deficiency as a result of the errors in the tax returns that Grant

Thornton had prepared. Id. at 607. Drawing an analogy from an attorney malpractice case,

Lucey v. Law Offices of Pretzel & Stouffer, Chartered, 301 Ill. App. 3d 349, 355 (1998), we

held: “The attorney fees that plaintiffs incurred in the IRS audit are damages only upon the

filing of an assessment by the IRS or only when plaintiffs are forced to settle with the IRS,

whichever event comes earliest.” Khan II, 408 Ill. App. 3d at 609.

¶ 41 b. The Statute of Repose in Section 13-214.2(b)

¶ 42 We disagreed with the trial court that the “[p]rovided” sentence in the statute of repose

(735 ILCS 5/13-214.2(b) (West 2008)) shortened the five-year period of limitation in the

preceding sentence of the statute. Instead, we interpreted section 13-214.2(b) to mean that,

notwithstanding the expiration of the five-year period in the first sentence, the plaintiff might

bring an action against the accountant within two years after an assessment. We reasoned:

“The trial court’s interpretation might be more convincing if the statute said that the

plaintiff ‘shall’ bring the action against the public accountant within two years after the

date of the assessment. Instead, the statute uses the permissive verb ‘may.’ The statute

says that the plaintiff ‘may’ bring the action within two years after the

assessment–suggesting that notwithstanding the first sentence of section 13-214.2(b),

-9-
which says that actions against an accountant are barred five years after the harmful act

or omission, the plaintiff has permission to bring the action within two years after an

assessment. Permission would be necessary, for purposes of the statute of repose, only

if the five-year period in the first sentence of section 13-214.2(b) had expired.” Khan II,

408 Ill. App. 3d at 611.

In other words, “[p]rovided” was a qualifying word, making an exception to the five-year

period by giving the aggrieved taxpayer permission to sue the accountant within two years

after the assessment.

¶ 43 Grant Thornton argued, however, that, in order for the “[p]rovided” qualification to be

applicable, the accountant had to prepare the plaintiff’s tax return and the IRS had to make

an assessment against the plaintiff. Id. at 612-13. Because Grant Thornton prepared the

income tax returns for Thermosphere instead of for the Khans and because the IRS

commenced assessment proceedings against the Khans individually instead of against

Thermosphere, Grant Thornton argued that the qualification in section 13-214.2(b) was, by

its terms, inapplicable. Id. at 613.

¶ 44 We rejected this argument by Grant Thornton because section 13-214.2(b) did not

actually say that the return had to be the injured person’s return. Id. Instead, the qualification

in section 13-214.2(b) said: “ ‘[I]n the event that an income tax assessment is made ***

against a person, that person may bring an action against the public accountant who prepared

the tax return within two years from the date of the assessment ***.’ ” Id. (quoting 735 ILCS

5/13-214.2(b) (West 2008)). The statute said “ ‘the tax return,’ ” not “the person’s individual

tax return.” Id. We inferred: “The legislature must have been aware that the negligent

preparation of a partnership’s return [could] cause individual returns to be incorrect and

result in assessment proceedings against individuals.” Id.

¶ 45 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 46 A. Our Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

¶ 47 We first must resolve the question of whether we have subject-matter jurisdiction over

these two appeals. On this question, plaintiffs invoke Illinois Supreme Court Rule 307(a)(1)

(eff. Feb. 26, 2010). That rule provides: “An appeal may be taken to the Appellate Court

from an interlocutoryorder of court *** granting, modifying, refusing, dissolving, orrefusing

to dissolve or modify an injunction ***.” Id. An order granting a stay of proceedings is a

preliminary injunction, appealable under Rule 307(a)(1). TIG Insurance Co. v. Canel, 389

Ill. App. 3d 366, 371 (2009); Property Management, Ltd. v. Howasa, Inc., 14 Ill. App. 3d

536, 539 (1973); Valente v. Maida, 24 Ill. App. 2d 144, 149-50 (1960).

¶ 48 Defendants take the position, however, that the trial court’s “Order on Motion for

Protective Order and Stay Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 201” (Ill. S. Ct. R. 201 (eff. July

1, 2002)) really is not an injunction but instead is a “ ‘routine discovery order.’ ” Goodrich

Corp. v. Clark, 361 Ill. App. 3d 1033, 1039 (2005). “Discovery orders ordinarily are not

subject to interlocutory appeal because they only regulate the procedural aspects of the case

before the court.” Id. The same is true of other “orders properly characterized as ‘ministerial’

or ‘administrative.’ ” Id. at 1039-40.

-10-
¶ 49 Hence, just because an order requires parties to do something or to refrain from doing

something–for example, just because an order requires parties to refrain from performing

discovery–it does not necessarily follow that the order is an injunction. Even though

“ministerial” or “administrative” orders, such as discovery orders, impose requirements or

prohibitions, they are not injunctions. Id. An order is an injunction only if it is the type of

order that, traditionally, a court of equity would issue in the enforcement of equitable

principles. In re A Minor, 127 Ill. 2d 247, 261-62 (1989). The supreme court has explained:

“Not every nonfinal order of a court is appealable, even if it compels a party to do or not

do a particular thing. Orders of the circuit court which can be properly characterized as

‘ministerial,’ or ‘administrative’–because they regulate only the procedural details of

litigation before the court–cannot be the subject of an interlocutory appeal. (See People

ex rel. Scott v. Silverstein (1981), 87 Ill. 2d 167, 171 (stating that discovery orders and

subpoenas are not appealable interlocutory orders).) Such orders may be considered

noninjunctive because they did not form part of the powertraditionally reserved to courts

of equity, but, instead, were part of the inherent power possessed by any court to compel

witnesses to appear before it and give testimony. (See JFS v. ABMJ (1983), 120 Ill. App.

3d 261, 262.) They do not affect the relationship of the parties in their everyday activity

apart from the litigation, and are therefore distinguishable from traditional forms of

injunctive relief.” Minor, 127 Ill. 2d at 261-62.

¶ 50 The final sentence of this quotation creates a contradiction by implying that unless an

order “affect[s] the relationship of the parties in their everyday activity apart from the

litigation,” the order does not fall within any of the “traditional forms of injunctive relief.”

Id. The contradiction is this: the supreme court just got through saying, two paragraphs

earlier in Minor, that a stay of litigation was an injunction (id. at 260); but a stay of litigation

would not necessarily affect the parties “in their everyday activity apart from the litigation”

(id. at 262). Regardless of whether a stay has any quotidian effect, a stay is indisputably a

“traditional form[ ] of injunctive relief.” Id.

¶ 51 “The use of injunctions to stay actions at law was almost coeval with the establishment

of the chancery jurisdiction.” 4 John Norton Pomeroy, A Treatise on Equity Jurisprudence

§ 1360, at 3248 (1919). In England, the court of chancery could never have built up its

equitable jurisdiction without “the instrumentality of the injunction restraining the

prosecution of legal actions, where the defendants sought the aid of chancery, which alone

could take cognizance of the equities that would defeat a recovery at law against them.” Id.

“Indeed the occasions on which an injunction may be used to stay proceedings at law are

almost infinite in their nature and circumstances.” 2 Joseph Story, Commentaries on Equity

Jurisprudence as Administered in England and America § 1206, at 566-67 (WH. Lyon, Jr.,

ed., 14th ed. 1918). See also Chapman v. American Surety Co., 261 Ill. 594, 599 (1914);

School District No. 46 v. Del Banco, 68 Ill. App. 2d 145, 152 (1966).

¶ 52 On the one hand, in the passage from Minor quoted above, the supreme court approves

of cases holding that stays of litigation are appealable injunctions (Minor, 127 Ill. 2d at 260-

61 (citing, among other cases, Valente and School District No. 46)), but, on the other hand,

the supreme court implies that, in order for a judicial directive to qualify as an injunction, it

must “affect the relationship of the parties in their everyday activity apart from the litigation”

-11-
(id. at 262). Because it strikes us as improbable that the supreme court, in Minor, intended

to overrule the line of cases holding that a stay is an appealable injunction (e.g., Disciplined

Investment Advisors, Inc. v. Schweihs, 272 Ill. App. 3d 681, 691 (1995); Atkins v. Rustic

Woods Partners, 171 Ill. App. 3d 373, 377 (1988); Valente, 24 Ill. App. 2d at 149-

50)–especially considering that the supreme court cited Valente with approval in that respect

(Minor, 127 Ill. 2d at 260)–we resolve the apparent contradiction by reaffirming the longheld view that a stay of proceedings is indeed an injunction.

¶ 53 An order could effectivelystayproceedings bystaying discovery, but, even so, Minor and

Silverstein appear to suggest that such an order would not be an injunction. Minor, 127 Ill.

2d at 262; Silverstein, 87 Ill. 2d at 171. “[D]iscovery orders *** are not appealable

interlocutory orders.” Minor, 127 Ill. 2d at 262.

¶ 54 The trial court’s order in the present case purports to be “pursuant to Illinois Supreme

Court Rule 201,” a rule entitled “General Discovery Provisions,” and defendants insist that

the order is nothing more than a discovery order. Rule 201(c)(1), which the trial court quotes

in its order, describes the protective orders a trial court may enter in its regulation of

discovery. The rule provides: “The court may at any time on its own initiative, or on motion

of any party or witness, make a protective order as justice requires, denying, limiting,

conditioning, or regulating discovery to prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense,

embarrassment, disadvantage, or oppression.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 201(c)(1) (eff. July 1, 2002). If

the court’s order in the present case were indeed a protective order pursuant to Rule

201(c)(1), and nothing more, we would lack subject-matter jurisdiction because such a

protective order would be a discovery order and the supreme court has flatly said that

“discovery orders *** are not appealable interlocutory orders.” Minor, 127 Ill. 2d at 262.

¶ 55 But is that all the trial court’s order is, a protective order pursuant to Rule 201(c)(1)?

“The appealability of an order is determined by its substance rather than its form.” Boonstra

v. City of Chicago, 214 Ill. App. 3d 379, 385 (1991). Likewise, the character of a pleading

is determined by its content, not its label. Sarkissian v. Chicago Board of Education, 201 Ill.

2d 95, 102 (2002). Although BDO’s and Collins’s motions invoked Rule 201(c)(1), the

motions actually sought more than a protective order regulating discovery. As plaintiffs

observe in their reply brief, the motions sought “a protective order and stay of the instant

proceedings,” to quote the motions. (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, when the court granted

the motions, it did more than enter a “protective order *** denying *** discovery” for the

time being (Ill. S. Ct. R. 201(c)(1) (eff. July 1, 2002)); the concluding sentence of the court’s

order says: “BDO Defendants’ (which will include Defendant Paul Shanbrom) Motion for

Protective Order and Stay is allowed.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, the court exercised not only

its power under Rule 201(c)(1) to regulate discovery but also its common-law equitable

power to stay the entire litigation pending before it. Such a stay is an appealable injunction.

Under Rule 307(a)(1), we have subject-matter jurisdiction over these appeals. See Minor,

127 Ill. 2d at 261; Disciplined Investment, 272 Ill. App. 3d at 691; Atkins, 171 Ill. App. 3d

at 377; Valente, 24 Ill. App. 2d at 149-50.

-12-
¶ 56 B. Staying the Cases Until Resolution of 

Grant Thornton’s Appeal to the Supreme Court

¶ 57 1. Guidance From Federal Case Law

¶ 58 The parties agree on the standard of review; they agree that (assuming we have subjectmatter jurisdiction) we should decide whether the trial court abused its discretion by staying

the proceedings. See Philips Electronics, N.V. v. New Hampshire Insurance Co., 295 Ill.

App. 3d 895, 902 (1998). They disagree, however, on how much overlap must exist between

the BDO defendants’ case and Grant Thornton’s appeal before a stay of litigation in the trial

court is justified. Plaintiffs argue that if some of the defendants in a case file an interlocutory

appeal, a trial court would be justified in staying the litigation against the other defendants

only if the pending appeal could potentially dispose of all the claims against those other

defendants, not just some of the claims against them.

¶ 59 Initially, we remark that this argument is counterintuitive. Assume, for instance, that a

pending appeal involves 9 of the 10 claims made in the trial court. It would seem strange to

argue that a stay is unjustified simply because the appeal cannot dispose of the tenth claim.

¶ 60 Granted, courts deem a stay to be a sound exercise of discretion if the appeal has the

potential of being completely dispositive. Plaintiffs cite, for example, Morrison v. YTB

International, Inc., Civil No. 08-565-GPM, 2010 WL 1931127, at *1 (S.D. Ill. May 13,

2010) (hereinafter Morrison). See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 (“A court may not prohibit or restrict

the citation of federal judicial opinions *** that have been *** designated as ‘unpublished[ ]’

*** and *** issued on or after January 1, 2007.”). According to plaintiffs, Morrison stands

for the following proposition: “Under Illinois law, a court is within its discretion to stay a

case when a ruling–which may be dispositive of the case at hand–is pending in that case or

in a separate proceeding.” (Emphasis in original.)

¶ 61 Actually, when it comes to a stay, Morrison says nothing about Illinois law; a stay is

procedural, and hence, under the Erie doctrine (Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64

(1938)), “[t]he determination of whether to stay a federal court proceeding is governed by

federal law” (Abdullah Sayid Rajab Al-Rifai & Sons W.L.L. v. McDonnell Douglas Foreign

Sales Corp., 988 F. Supp. 1285, 1291 (E.D. Mo. 1997)). See Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460,

465 (1965) (“[F]ederal courts [sitting in diversity cases] are to apply state substantive law

and federal procedural law.”).

¶ 62 Even under federal law, just because a trial court is, as plaintiffs rightly say, “within its

discretion” by staying litigation pending an interlocutory appeal that could dispose of all

issues, it does not follow that a court is outside its discretion by staying litigation pending an

interlocutoryappeal that could dispose of significant issues, though not all the issues. In other

words, Morrison does not suggest that the potential disposition of all issues is the sine qua

non of a stay. Rather, Morrison says: “Typically, an appropriate exercise of a court’s

discretion to enter a stay is a situation in which a ruling dispositive of a case is pending either

in the case in which a stay is under consideration or in a separate matter.” Morrison, 2010

WL 1931127, at *1. “Typically” does not mean “always,” and “an appropriate exercise of

a court’s discretion” is not necessarily the only appropriate exercise of a court’s discretion.

(Emphasis added.) Id.

-13-
¶ 63 In fact, federal courts have rejected the assertion that the separate proceeding has to be

potentially dispositive in order to justify a stay. The Supreme Court has said that the issues

in the two proceedings do not have to be “identical.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S.

248, 254 (1936). And the Ninth Circuit has said: “[A] trial court may, with propriety, find

it is efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an

action before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.

This rule applies whether the separate proceedings are judicial, administrative, or arbitral in

character, and does not require that the issues in such proceedings are necessarily

controlling of the action before the court.” (Emphases added and internal quotation marks

omitted.) MediterraneanEnterprises, Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458, 1465 (9th Cir.

1983). See also Lakeland Village Homeowners Ass’n v. Great American Insurance Group,

727 F. Supp. 2d 887, 897 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (“Since three of [the] [p]laintiff’s four claims

against [the defendant] are based upon [the appealed issue], [i]t would be a waste of judicial

and party resources to proceed with [these] claims while the appeal is pending.” (Internal

quotation marks omitted.)); Ass’n of Irritated Residents v. Fred Schakel Dairy, 634 F. Supp.

2d 1081, 1094 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (even though the interlocutory appeal could dispose of only

one of the three claims, a stay was worthwhile because “a resolution of the interlocutory

appeal regarding the third cause of action in favor of [the] [d]efendants would alter the

direction of the current proceedings, and might prompt the filing of an amended complaint”).

So, if we take our cue from nonbinding federal authority, the pending interlocutory appeal

does not have to be potentially dispositive or controlling of all claims in order for the trial

court to order a stay.

¶ 64 2. An Analogy From Illinois Case Law

¶ 65 Drawing an analogy from our decision in Shaw v. Citizens State Bank of Shipman, 185

Ill. App. 3d 79 (1989), we conclude that imposing a stay until resolution of Grant Thornton’s

appeal to the supreme court was a reasonable exercise of the trial court’s discretion.

¶ 66 The facts in Shaw are not precisely parallel to those before us, but the factual differences

are insignificant and have no tendency to lessen the applicability of Shaw’s rationale. In

Shaw, the plaintiff filed two actions in the Macoupin County circuit court. Id. at 80. One

action was against a bank, and the other action was against the bank and the owner of a grain

elevator. Id. In both cases, which the circuit court consolidated, the gist of the plaintiff’s

complaint was the same. The plaintiff alleged that he and his father, Julius Shaw, had entered

into a lease agreement, in which Julius Shaw agreed to lease him a farm. Id. The bank,

however, had lent money to Julius Shaw, who, in return, had granted the bank a security

interest in all growing crops and stored grain on his farm–the same farm he subsequently

rented to his son, the plaintiff. Id. After the plaintiff, pursuant to the lease agreement, raised

crops on the farm, harvested them, and took the grain to elevators, the bank made claims to

the elevators that this corn–which the plaintiff, of course, considered to be his corn–was

actually the bank’s corn under the terms of its security agreement with Julius Shaw (who

evidently had defaulted on his loan). Id.

¶ 67 The plaintiff’s parents, Julius Shaw and Phyllis Shaw, then filed for “relief under chapter

-14-
12 of the BankruptcyAct (11 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.),” but the bankruptcy court dismissed their

petition because (1) the bankruptcy court found the lease between the plaintiff and Julius

Shaw to be valid and enforceable; (2) given that lease, the Shaws could not have been

engaged in a farming operation when they filed their bankruptcy petition; and (3) given that

they were not engaged in a farming operation at the time of filing, they were ineligible for

relief under chapter 12. Id. See 11 U.S.C. § 109(f) (2006) (“Only a family farmer or family

fisherman with regular annual income may be a debtor under chapter 12 of this title [(11

U.S.C. §§ 1201 to 1231 (2006))].”); 11 U.S.C. § 101(18)(A) (2006) (to be a “family farmer,”

the individual must be “engaged in a farming operation”); Otoe County National Bank v.

Easton, 883 F.2d 630, 634 (8th Cir. 1989) (“[W]e reject the proposition *** that the renting

out of land simpliciter constitutes ‘farming,’ and hence by statutory definition, a ‘farming

operation.’ ”). The bank, a party to the bankruptcy case, was concerned by the bankruptcy

court’s finding that the plaintiff and Julius Shaw had a valid lease; the bank regarded that

finding as a threat to its asserted security interest in the grain. Therefore, the bank appealed

the dismissal of the bankruptcy petition. Shaw, 185 Ill. App. 3d at 80.

¶ 68 The plaintiff, however, presented the circuit court with the bankruptcy court’s finding,

pleading res judicata. Id. at 81. The bank responded by filing in circuit court a motion to stay

the consolidated cases until the federal appellate court issued its decision. Id. The bank

argued that “the existence and validity of [the] plaintiff’s lease with his father [was] a major

factual issue in the combined cases, because, for [the] plaintiff to prevail, he [had to] show

that the lease for a cash rent [was] valid, thus preventing creditors of his parents from having

a lien upon the grain grown upon the land.” Id. The federal appellate court might set aside

the bankruptcy court’s finding that the plaintiff and Julius Shaw had a valid lease, and the

bank argued it would be unwise for the circuit court to base its own decision on a finding that

the pending federal appeal might erase. Id.

¶ 69 The circuit court denied the bank’s motion for a stay. The court relied on State Life

Insurance Co. v. Board of Education, 401 Ill. 252, 257 (1948), in which the supreme court

said: “ ‘The rule has been settled that where a judgment in one case has successfully been

made the basis for the judgment in a second case, the second judgment will stand as res

judicata, although the first judgment be subsequently reversed.’ ” Shaw, 185 Ill. App. 3d at

81 (quoting State Life, 401 Ill. at 257). Evidently, the court reasoned that because the law

would give effect to such conflicting judgments, a stay should not be used to prevent such

contradictions from coming into existence in the first place.

¶ 70 We disagreed, relying on our decision in Wiseman v. Law Research, Inc., 133 Ill. App.

2d 790 (1971). We said:

“This court recognized in Wiseman, citing State Life, that a judgment of a trial court

could be res judicata even where that judgment was being appealed. This court also

recognized, however, the unfortunate result which could occur where a judgment being

appealed in one case is used as a basis for a second case before the appeal is final. If the

first decision is subsequently reversed, the second decision, though then erroneous,

would be required to stand, and there would be no avenue of relief. To avoid that

situation, the Wiseman court determined that the final decision in the second case should

be delayed until the decision on appeal had been rendered. The court added the caveat

-15-
that the circuit court could determine at a subsequent date whether the appeal was

proceeding at a reasonable pace, and if it were not, the stay order could be set aside and

the proceedings could continue in their ordinarycourse.” Shaw, 185 Ill. App. 3d at 81-82.

¶ 71 In other words, unseemly contradictions between judgments could arise in the following

manner. While a circuit court has a case pending before it, anothertribunal, in a separate case

between the same parties, makes a finding relevant to the case before the circuit court–but

a party to that case before the other tribunal appeals. While the appeal from the judgment of

that other tribunal is still pending, the circuit court makes a decision in the case before it on

the basis of the tribunal’s finding. The time runs out for appealing the circuit court’s

judgment, making that judgment res judicata. Then a reviewing court overturns the tribunal’s

finding–the finding on which the circuit court unfortunately had relied in reaching the

judgment that has become res judicata. Our point in Shaw was that such a fiasco was

possible under the law, but it did not have to be inevitable: the circuit court could have, and

should have, stayed the proceedings before it until the appeal from the tribunal’s judgment

was resolved.

¶ 72 The plaintiff in Shaw argued, however, that, in his cases pending in the circuit court, a

stay was unjustified because the validity of the lease was only one issue in those cases and

resolving that issue favorably to him would not yield a judgment; he still would have to

prove other elements. Id. at 82. We responded:

“We do not agree this is a sufficient distinction to negate application of the Wiseman

theory. We recognize that an issue decided in another case may be so collateral to the

case where a court is requested to give res judicata effect to that decision that no stay

pending appeal of the earlier case is warranted. But here, where the question in the other

case is so significant, the unfairness of denying a party an opportunity to refute a

determination of another tribunal which may be determined to be wrong requires the

application of the Wiseman precedent.” Id.

¶ 73 We acknowledged that, even if the overlapping issue were significant, a stay was not

without its pitfalls. The pending appeal could have dragged on, making the length of the stay

unfair and excessively prejudicial to the opposing party. Id. Or the appeal could have been

frivolous, a ploy to keep res judicata at bay. Id. Here is how we addressed those concerns:

“The Wiseman opinion recognizes that the period of the stay should not be

unreasonably long, and if the appeal does not proceed with reasonable dispatch, the stay

should be lifted. However, when the record shows that the issue on appeal is significant

as here, and no conclusive showing is made that the appeal is frivolous or a sham,

Wiseman requires the trial court to grant a stay for a reasonable time.” Id. at 82-83.

¶ 74 Thus, according to Shaw, in order for a stay to be justified, the overlap between the case

at hand and the pending appeal does not have to be complete such that resolution of the

appeal is potentially dispositive; it is necessary only that the two proceedings share a

“significant” issue, in contrast to an issue “collateral” to the case at hand. Id. at 82. Unless

the appeal is clearly frivolous, the circuit court should stay its proceedings for a reasonable

length of time, until the appeal resolves the shared significant issue. Id. at 82-83. If it turns

out that the appeal is lasting too long, the court should lift the stay. Id. at 82. See also

-16-
Kensington’s Wine Auctioneers & Brokers, Inc. v. John Hart Fine Wine, Ltd., 392 Ill. App.

3d 1, 17 (2009); In re Estate of Barth, 339 Ill. App. 3d 651, 668 (2003); Illinois Founders

Insurance Co. v. Guidish, 248 Ill. App. 3d 116, 121 (1993).

¶ 75 It is true that Wiseman and its progeny–Shaw, Illinois Founders, Barth, and Kensington’s

Wine–involved separate actions whereas Grant Thornton’s appeal to the supreme court is part

of, and a continuation of, the same action that is pending before the trial court. Nevertheless,

we do not see how this factual distinction weakens the relevance of the Wiseman doctrine.

There is the same potential for contradictory decisions, since, on remand, the trial court must

follow our decision, which the supreme court might afterward reverse. Our decision in Khan

II is the law of the case, binding on the trial court. See Kennedy v. First National Bank of

Mattoon, 259 Ill. App. 3d 560, 563 (1994). But, as a practical matter, Grant Thornton’s

appeal to the supreme court makes our decision in Khan II tentative.

¶ 76 In its appeal to the supreme court, Grant Thornton makes good-faith arguments deserving

of serious consideration; no “conclusive showing” has been made that Grant Thornton’s

appeal is “frivolous or a sham.” Shaw, 185 Ill. App. 3d at 82. The supreme court might agree

with Grant Thornton and disagree with us, reversing our judgment in Khan II. If, before that

possible outcome, the trial court and the parties make decisions based on our (later reversed)

decision in Khan II, “unfortunate” inconsistencies could arise. Id. at 81. Expensive discovery

could be conducted on claims, or portions of claims, that the supreme court ultimately holds

to be time-barred. Pleadings, motions, and memoranda could be drafted, filed, and argued

only for the court and the parties to later find out that these costly and time-consuming efforts

are based on incorrect legal premises. Plaintiffs could even win a money judgment premised

on our holdings in Khan II, and, after the time for appeal has run out, the supreme court

could reject some or all of those holdings. Understandably, the trial court did not want to step

onto a rug that could be jerked out from under its feet.

¶ 77 To be sure, as plaintiffs point out in their brief, they still might have viable theories of

recovery against BDO even if the supreme court agrees with all of Grant Thornton’s

arguments. In its brief to the supreme court in Khan v. Grant Thornton LLP, No. 112223,

Grant Thornton argues, for example, that for purposes of the two-year statute of limitations

in section 13-214.2(a) (735 ILCS 5/13-214.2(a) (West 2008)), plaintiffs’ cause of action

against Grant Thornton accrued at the same time it accrued against other coconspirators:

when the Khans paid the transaction fees in 2000 or 2001. Even if the supreme court agrees

with that argument, plaintiffs might still have the argument that BDO committed fresh torts,

and fraudulently concealed their causes of action, by subsequently misleading them in the

IRS audit in 2003.

¶ 78 So, like the trial court, we agree it is unclear that a supreme court decision entirely

favorable to Grant Thornton would dispose of all of plaintiffs’ claims against the BDO

defendants. But the test is whether the supreme court’s decision would be significant to the

litigation against the BDO defendants, not whether it would be completely dispositive of the

litigation (see Shaw, 185 Ill. App. 3d at 82; Mediterranean, 708 F.2d at 1465), and since

Grant Thornton is asking the supreme court to interpret the statute of limitations and statute

of repose pertaining to accountants (735 ILCS 5/13-214.2(a), (b) (West 2008)) and to

elucidate when a cause of action for bad tax advice accrues, one might reasonably expect that

-17-
the supreme court’s decision will have considerable significance for plaintiffs’ claims against

another accounting firm, BDO. For example, plaintiffs might or might not have to prove

fraudulent concealment by BDO, depending on the supreme court’s decision in Grant

Thornton’s appeal. Also, the BDO defendants cannot intelligently conduct their defense, or

know how to respond to discovery requests, until they receive final and definitive guidance

on (1) when a cause of action for bad tax advice accrues and (2) what is the correct

interpretation of the statute of repose in section 13-213.2(b) (735 ILCS 5/13-214.2(b) (West

2008)). These are questions that the supreme court is anticipated to address in Grant

Thornton’s and Deutsche Bank’s consolidated appeals. The trial court did not abuse its

discretion by staying the litigation against the BDO defendants until the supreme court

answers these questions.

¶ 79 C. Staying the Cases Until the Claim of Breach of Contract Is Arbitrated

¶ 80 The trial court stayed the proceedings not only for the duration of Grant Thornton’s

appeal to the supreme court but also for the duration of the arbitration of plaintiffs’ claims

of breach of contract. Plaintiffs contend that imposing a stay until the conclusion of the

arbitration was an abuse of discretion and severely prejudicial to them.

¶ 81 Section 2(d) of the Uniform Arbitration Act (710 ILCS 5/2(d) (West 2010)) provides:

“Any action or proceeding involving an issue subject to arbitration shall be stayed if an order

for arbitration or an application therefor has been made under this Section or, if the issue is

severable, the stay may be with respect thereto only.” The first part of section 2(d) is

expressed in mandatory language: if the proceeding involves an issue subject to arbitration,

the whole proceeding “shall be stayed.” But then the statute provides an alternative,

introduced by the conjunction “or”: if the issue subject to arbitration is “severable” from the

other issues in the proceeding, the stay “may” apply to that issue alone. In effect, section 2(d)

gives the trial court a choice if an issue is within the arbitration agreement but the other

issues are outside the arbitration agreement: the court may stay the entire proceeding, or,

alternatively, the court may stay the proceeding only with respect to the severable issue that

is subject to arbitration. Kelso-Burnett Co. v. Zeus Development Corp., 107 Ill. App. 3d 34,

41 (1982).

¶ 82 Keeping in mind that our standard of review–abuse of discretion–is the most deferential

standard of review recognized by law (In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347, 356 (2004)), we do not see

how it was “within the bounds of reason” to stay the proceedings until the claims of breach

of contract (whatever was left of those claims) were arbitrated (People v. Ortega, 209 Ill. 2d

354, 360 (2004)). For the reasons we have explained, we understand and uphold the trial

court’s decision to stay the proceedings until the supreme court decides Grant Thornton’s

appeal, but because our interpretation of the arbitration agreement, in Khan I, has thoroughly

hollowed out the claims of breach of contract, we do not see the logic or usefulness of

awaiting the conclusion of the arbitration as well. It is unclear to us that anything is left to

arbitrate, given the conduct that the complaints designate as breaches of contract.

¶ 83 There are two cases in the trial court and therefore two complaints, each of which

contains a count entitled “Breach of Contract”: count IX in Champaign County case No. 90-

-18-
L-139 and count X in Champaign County case No. 09-L-140. Both of those counts assert,

in identical language, that the BDO defendants breached their contract with plaintiffs in the

following ways:

“These Defendants breached their obligations under the oral and/or written contracts

with the Plaintiffs, which caused damages to the Plaintiffs. For instance, Defendants

marketed and sold the illegal and abusive tax shelters to Plaintiffs. The Defendants then

implemented these illegal and abusive tax shelters for Plaintiffs. The Distressed Debt

Strategies were not legal tax-advantaged investment strategies as Defendants promised

Plaintiffs they would receive and which Plaintiffs bargained for. Certain of Defendants

assisted in the preparation of Plaintiffs’ tax returns, signed Plaintiffs’ tax returns and

advised the Plaintiffs to sign and file the tax returns using the losses generated by these

illegal and abusive tax shelters.”

¶ 84 In the paragraph quoted above, plaintiffs refer to “oral and/or written contracts,” but the

consulting agreement contains a merger clause, providing as follows:

“ ‘This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the

subject matter herein, suspending all prior agreements, negotiations or understandings,

whether oral or written, with respect to such subject matter. This Agreement may not be

amended or modified except in writing signed by duly authorized representatives of the

Client and BDO.’ ” Khan I, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 898.

¶ 85 The “ ‘subject matter’ ” of the consulting agreement includes “ ‘investment advice or

services’ ” and “ ‘legal and/or tax opinions regarding any strategies that may be

implemented.’ ” Id. at 897. These areas of endeavor are “ ‘subject matter’ ” of the consulting

agreement in that BDO specifically disclaims them as part of its contractual performance. Id.

at 898. Because the consulting agreement disclaims these services as part of BDO’s promised

contractual performance, these services are outside the scope of the arbitration clause, which

covers only“ ‘anydispute, controversyor claim aris[ing] in connection with the performance

or breach of this agreement’ ” (id. at 913). Id. at 918, 919. Given the merger clause, it is

difficult to see how plaintiffs could have some other, oral contract with the BDO defendants

regarding investment advice or tax advice. According to the merger clause, any subsequent

agreement regarding this subject matter would have to be in a writing signed by the

contracting parties, and we are aware of no such writing.

¶ 86 So, insomuch as plaintiffs seek to recover from the BDO defendants for bad investment

advice, they evidently will have to do so on some theory other than breach of contract, since

the written contract says that investment advice and investment services will not be part of

BDO’s promised performance. That is why bad investment advice is outside the scope of the

arbitration clause.

¶ 87 Likewise, insomuch as plaintiffs seek to recover from BDO for bad tax advice, it is

unclear how they could do so under a theory of breach of contract, considering that tax

advice is another service that the written contract specifically disclaims. The contracting

parties not only exclude tax advice from being part of BDO’s promised performance, but

they agree that insomuch as BDO gives tax advice, such advice is a tentative suggestion that

plaintiffs are obliged to validate by consulting a lawyer. It would seem that the only way

-19-
plaintiffs could recover from the BDO defendants for bad tax advice would be on some

theory of tort based on BDO’s conduct in steering plaintiffs to lawyers having prior

agreements with BDO to issue bogus legal opinions. Id. at 919.

¶ 88 In sum, given our analysis in Khan I, bad investment advice and bad tax advice are

excluded from the breach-of-contract claim, because, as the parties stipulated in their

integrated agreement, which could be modified only in writing, investment advice and tax

advice were not part of BDO’s agreed-on performance. Those theories, which are the meat

of plaintiffs’ case–if not the hide, hair, bones, and nails, too–are relegated to the realm of tort

or some realm other than contract, as the trial court seemed to recognize when it refused to

allow plaintiffs to present their tort claims as contract claims for purposes of statutes of

limitations.

¶ 89 What is left, then, of the claims of breach of contract? Or, to ask the question differently,

what is left to arbitrate? We do not know. In Khan I, we intended to proceed cautiously; we

left the door open in case the parties could think of some alleged breach of contract to

arbitrate (plaintiffs say “[f]or instance” when listing the breaches of contract in their

complaints). If indeed anything is left under the heading of breach of contract, it would seem

relatively insignificant and “collateral” to the central allegations of bad investment advice

and bad tax advice. See Shaw, 185 Ill. App. 3d at 82. Therefore, while we find that the trial

court was well within its discretion to stay the proceedings until the supreme court decided

Grant Thornton’s appeal, we conclude the court abused its discretion by staying the

proceedings against the BDO defendants until the breach-of-contract claims were arbitrated,

given that those claims are collateral at best.

¶ 90 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 91 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the stay as modified so as to last only for the

duration of Grant Thornton’s appeal to the supreme court, not for the duration of the

arbitration.

¶ 92 Affirmed as modified.

-20-