Find Court Cases > Go Back to List > Gold v. Ziff Communications Co.

Gold v. Ziff Communications Co.

Case Date: 03/31/2001
Court: 1st District Appellate
Docket No: 1-99-3142 Rel

SECOND DIVISION
MARCH 31, 2001

1-99-3142


ANTHONY R. GOLD, PC BRAND, INC.,
SOFTWARE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
HANSON & CONNORS, INC.,

     Plaintiffs and
     Counterdefendants-Appellees,

          v.

ZIFF COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, d/b/a
ZIFF-DAVIS PUBLISHING COMPANY,

     Defendant and
     Counterplaintiff-Appellant.

 )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)		 Appeal from the
Circuit Court
of Cook County


No. 95 L 8516






The Honorable
Richard E. Neville,
Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE COUSINS delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiffs Anthony Gold (Gold), PC Brand, Inc. (PC Brand), SoftwareCommunications, Inc. (SCI), and Hanson & Connors, Inc. (Hanson), sueddefendant Ziff Communications Company, doing business as Ziff-Davis PublishingCompany (Ziff), for breach of contract, seeking damages arising from Ziff'salleged breach of an agreement which provided that any company controlled byGold could advertise in Ziff's publications at reduced rates. This action waspreviously before this court in Gold v. Ziff Communications, 265 Ill.App. 3d 953, 638 N.E.2d 756 (1994) (Gold II), which remanded for trialthe "control" issue, i.e., "the question of whether Goldviolated the terms of the amended Ad/List agreement with his holdings in PCBrand." Gold II, 265 Ill. App. 3d at 965.

After a five-week trial, the jury found Ziff liable and awarded two verdicts:(1)$44,580,000 to PC Brand, Inc./Gold for future lost profits and business valuedamages; and (2) $10,800,000 to Hanson & Connors, Inc./SCI/Gold for futurelost profits and business value damages. The trial court subsequently awardedprejudgment interest of $26,773,834.58 to PC Brand, Inc./Gold and $6,486,265.27to Hanson & Connors, Inc./SCI/Gold.

Ziff now appeals, arguing that: (1) the trial court erred by accepting theclaims of multiple plaintiffs on a single verdict form; (2) PC Brand and Hansonwere not proper plaintiffs; (3) evidence failed to support the jury