Miramar Capital, LLC v. Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC

2026 IL App (2d) 250055 No. 2-25-0055 Opinion filed July 9, 2026 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT MIRAMAR CAPITAL, LLC, and ROBERT KALMAN, Plaintiffs-Appellees and Cross- Appellants, v. WELLS FARGO CLEARING SERVICES, LLC d/b/a Wells Fargo Advisors, and STEVEN HEFTER, Defendants (Steven Hefter, Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Appellee). Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lake County. Honorable Charles William Smith, Judge, Presiding. No. 19-L-801 JUSTICE MULLEN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Schostok and Birkett concurred in the judgment and opinion. OPINION ¶1 Plaintiffs Miramar Capital, LLC (Miramar) and Robert Kalman filed a verified complaint against defendants Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC d/b/a Wells Fargo Advisors (Wells Fargo) and Steven Hefter. 1 As amended, the complaint alleged that Hefter, an investment advisor working as an agent for Wells Fargo, made false statements to plaintiffs’ clients that wrongly alleged past fraud by Kalman (an investment advisor for Miramar) in connection with Kalman’s profession in 1 Miramar was initially a plaintiff in this action. During trial, however, the trial court granted defendants’ oral motion for a directed verdict against Miramar. an attempt to lure those clients from plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sought recovery under theories of defamation per se (count I), false light invasion of privacy (count II), and a violation of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West 2018)) (count III). ¶2 The matter proceeded to a jury trial in the circuit court of Lake County on counts I and II. 2 The jury found Hefter liable to Kalman for defamation per se. The jury awarded Kalman compensatory damages from Hefter in the amount of 50% of all legal fees, $100,000 in presumed damages, and $2.5 million in punitive damages. The jury also found Hefter liable to Kalman for false light invasion of privacy and awarded compensatory damages in the amount of $100,000 on that count. Finally, the jury found Wells Fargo liable to Kalman for compensatory damages in the amount of 50% of all legal fees and $25 million in punitive damages. In response to defendants’ posttrial motions, the trial court struck the jury’s awards of attorney fees against defendants. The court also struck the award of compensatory damages for false light invasion of privacy on the basis that it constituted a double recovery. Finally, the trial court found that the punitive damages awards were excessive and remitted them to $1.1 million against each defendant, for a total of $2.2 million. After denying Kalman’s motion to reconsider, the trial court entered an order and amended judgment. Hefter filed a notice of appeal, and Kalman filed a notice of cross-appeal. 3 ¶3 On appeal, Hefter raises two principal issues. He first argues that a new trial is necessary to cure various prejudicial errors committed by the trial court with respect to the court’s evidentiary rulings. Alternatively, Hefter asserts that the punitive damages award as reduced is excessive and requires further remittitur. In his cross-appeal, Kalman contends that the trial court erred in 2 Prior to trial, the trial court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss count III. 3 Wells Fargo has not appealed. -2- remitting the punitive damages award and asks that we restore the full award of punitive damages. We affirm. ¶4 I. STATEMENT OF FACTS ¶5 A. The Parties ¶6 Hefter is an investment advisor with more than 30 years of experience in the financial industry. When the conduct relevant to this litigation occurred, Hefter was employed by Wells Fargo. Kalman is an investment advisor and portfolio manager. Kalman has worked in the investment industry for approximately 30 years. Miramar is an advisory firm registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that manages the discretionary assets of individuals, small foundations, and institutions. Kalman and Max Wasserman formed Miramar in 2018. ¶7 B. The Voicemail and Aftermath ¶8 This matter involves a voicemail Hefter left on December 6, 2018, for Victoria “Rivka” Zell. Zell, someone known socially to both Hefter and Kalman, received money in a divorce settlement. Hefter learned that Zell was planning to use Kalman to manage her money. Hefter had never heard of Kalman, so he researched Kalman on BrokerCheck and Google. 4 Hefter also conducted a Google search of Richard Kushnir (Richard), Kalman’s former partner. ¶9 After reviewing publicly available information about Kalman, his firms, and his business associates, Hefter was “concerned.” On December 6, 2018, Hefter called Zell because he was 4 BrokerCheck is a tool on the website of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) that allows the public to search for information about financial advisors, including employment history, customer disputes, and regulatory actions. See About BrokerCheck, Fin. Indus. Regul. Auth., https://www.finra.org/investors/investing/working-with-investment-professional/about-brokercheck (last visited June 10, 2026) [https://perma.cc/PLB5-KKTZ]. -3- “worried about [her]” and “wanted to make sure she understood everything.” When Zell did not answer, Hefter left the following voicemail: “Rivka, it is Steve Hefter. Um, it was good seeing you yesterday, albeit it was at a funeral. Um, I hope you give me a call. I’m concerned that you’re a very active person in the community and you contribute to a lot of really good causes. There is some concern with the guy you seem to be going with, having defrauded, uh, investors in the past and having that on his record, and I just want to chat with you and make sure you have dotted your i’s and crossed your t’s. Um, because I know there is a guy, that we know, that lost tens of millions of dollars with a small firm, uh, because they had a problem, and they went bust and it wasn’t any money [sic] to repay the investors. I don’t know that that’s the situation because I don’t know much more than what the, uh, filings are reporting about what was done in the past, but I’m concerned enough that I’d appreciate it if you would just give me a call. Thanks. [Hefter’s phone number]. Bye.” Also on December 6, 2018, Hefter sent Zell the following e-mail: “Rivka, You may want to ask your broker why 3 of his previous firms were expelled from the regulatory agency, FINRA [the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority]. Over 35 years I’ve seen investors lose lots and lots of money when the small firms they were with went under. Another question to ask the advisor is do they have experts associated with the various investment vehicles and are they able to construct portfolios optimizing the choice between individual stocks, ETF’s, mutual funds, separately managed outside managers, private equity, real estate and funds that are hedged. -4-  Please give me a call at your convenience.” Hefter attached to the e-mail a “Broker Registration History” screenshot from BrokerCheck showing the expulsion of the firms referenced in the e-mail. Plaintiffs learned of the contents of the voicemail and later received a copy of the voicemail from Zell on December 20, 2018. ¶ 10 On December 31, 2018, Zell complained to Hefter via e-mail about his voicemail and follow-up e-mail. In her December 31, 2018, e-mail, Zell stated that she found Hefter’s “comments, phone message and email stating the person managing [her] money has defrauded investors to be despicable.” Zell continued: “You have accused my ‘broker’ of being involved in fraud in a voicemail, and then you forwarded me this screenshot from FINRA. When I went to [the FINRA website] to see how many disclosures he has, it’s ZERO. You misrepresent the facts on purpose for your gain, not my protection. I think that your salesmanship is unethical and, quite frankly, deserves some kind of formal action.” ¶ 11 Hefter reported Zell’s complaint the next day (January 1, 2019) to Wells Fargo via an e- mail to Heide Murray, attaching Zell’s e-mail of December 31, 2018. In the e-mail to Murray, Hefter stated: “Rivka Zell is someone Eli Wald [a financial advisor at Wells Fargo] and I have known socially for years. Eli had scheduled 2 meetings with her to discuss our services, both of which she cancelled. I saw her a month ago at an event and she said she would call me to schedule a meeting. She never did. Eli sent me the Finra report that’s available on the image 003 link. When you click on the 9 firms [Kalman] owned or worked for you will see that Finra expelled 3 of them. -5-  In my note to Rivka I suggested that she might want to ask why those 3 firms were expelled by the regulators.” Further, Hefter wrote, “You can see by [Zell’s] response that she thinks I said her broker defrauded investors. This is false. I did not say that[.]” The complaint transmittal form initiated by Wells Fargo also disclaimed the use of the phrase “defrauded investors.” As part of its investigation into the matter, Wells Fargo reviewed the public record and had meetings with Hefter, Zell, and Kalman’s counsel. Ultimately, Wells Fargo declined to discipline Hefter, concluding that he had not violated any industry standards. ¶ 12 C. The Complaint and Pretrial Proceedings ¶ 13 Kalman filed his original verified complaint against Hefter and Wells Fargo on November 1, 2019. In their answer to Kalman’s verified second-amended complaint, Wells Fargo and Hefter raised various affirmative defenses, including innocent construction, qualified and conditional statements, substantial truth, and first amendment. Following motion practice regarding the pleadings and a prior appeal involving whether the issues raised were subject to FINRA’s mandatory arbitration provisions (see Miramar Capital, LLC v. Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC, 2021 IL App (2d) 200602-U), the parties commenced discovery on Kalman’s verified second-amended complaint. ¶ 14 Throughout the discovery process, in responses to written requests and at his deposition, Kalman indicated that he had no documents supporting or related to his request for damages. On the eve of trial, Kalman sought leave to amend his disclosures to include invoices for attorney fees he claimed to have incurred in connection with the litigation. The trial court ruled that due to the lack of disclosure during discovery, Kalman would not be permitted to introduce the invoices at trial or testify to the amount of fees. Kalman would, however, be permitted to testify that he had -6- incurred attorney fees. Also prior to trial, the court ruled on various motions in limine. As a result of these rulings, the trial court excluded any evidence regarding the conduct of third parties, including certain aspects of the relationship between Kalman and his former partner, Richard. In addition, the court excluded evidence of two lawsuits: Braverman v. Kalman Kushnir Capital, LLC, No. 2017-L-000847 (Cir. Ct. Cook County), and DirecTV, Inc. v. Kalman, No. 03-CV-08610 (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Ill.). ¶ 15 Following a motion seeking reconsideration or clarification regarding the motions in limine, the trial court ruled that Hefter would be permitted to introduce evidence that he associated Kalman with Richard “based on the public record and their prior associations”; that Hefter had knowledge that Richard had regulatory, litigation, and disciplinary issues; and that Hefter was referring not only to Kalman when he said “the guy” but also Kalman’s firms, partnerships, and prior associations. The trial court also provided specific guidance about what testimony Hefter could offer, stating that Hefter could testify that Richard was Kalman’s partner; that Richard “had regulatory problems, and that is why [Hefter] was concerned”; that Kalman “had been associated with [Richard] for a number of years *** [and Richard] had been barred from securities”; that Richard “had been disciplined and had lost his right to sell securities and that [Richard] was a partner to Kalman for a number of years”; that Hefter viewed the Kalman-Richard firms “all the same”; and that “Kalman’s former partner had regulatory complaints against him that caused *** Richard to lose his license, and that they had nothing to do with Kalman.” But some evidence remained excluded, and Hefter made offers of proof at trial regarding certain excluded evidence, each of which resulted in the trial court standing on its prior ruling. -7- ¶ 16 D. The Trial ¶ 17 Prior to witness testimony, the trial court read to the jurors Hefter’s December 6, 2018, voicemail to Zell. The following witness testimony was then presented. ¶ 18 1. Plaintiff Robert Kalman ¶ 19 Kalman testified that Miramar caters to high-net-worth individuals and entities and requires a minimum client investment of $1 million. All of Miramar’s business comes via referrals from existing clients. In 2022, Miramar reported revenue of $3.322 million, and Kalman reported personal income of $583,599. Zell became a Miramar client in 2018 after she enlisted Kalman’s advice during her divorce. Kalman and Miramar are competitors of Hefter and Wells Fargo. ¶ 20 Kalman further testified that at the time he learned of the voicemail, he was Zell’s financial advisor. Kalman testified that he was “horrified” and “angry” after hearing the voicemail. Kalman was upset that anyone would say anything like that about him. Kalman stated that the voicemail put a “substantial” strain on his relationship with Zell, requiring him to defend himself and “somehow prove a negative since nothing like that had ever happened.” To reassure Zell that he had never defrauded investors in the past, Kalman and Zell reviewed public documents that “showed [he] had never had any disclosures in terms of bad acts in [his] 30-some years in the business.” Kalman noted that as time went on, Zell “saw the relationship for what it had always been, and she remain[ed] with [Miramar] and does to this day.” Kalman was asked whether he took steps to investigate if Hefter made the same statement to others. Kalman responded: “Well *** it’s the type of thing once you hear something like that, you can’t unhear it, so to go out in the community where we build our business and to ask questions of that nature, we just couldn’t do that because it would all of a sudden introduce something again that -8-  was not true. So other than—well, I actually shared it with [Wasserman], obviously, because he was my partner.” ¶ 21 Kalman testified that he has never defrauded an investor or client. Further, he has never been accused of defrauding an investor. Kalman testified that he has never been disciplined by any governing body or regulatory authority in the financial industry and he has never been sanctioned or disciplined by any employer for defrauding an investor. In addition, Kalman testified that he has never been indicted by any state or federal law enforcement agency for committing fraud on an investor. ¶ 22 Kalman acknowledged that, following the voicemail, he did not lose Zell as a client. Kalman further acknowledged that since Zell became a client, Miramar has grown its business. Asked what damages he suffered because of the voicemail Hefter left for Zell, Kalman responded: “Well, anyone with a conscience who has something like that said about them where you know it’s not true, it just affects you, and I don’t know any other way to describe it, but if someone says something about you that is patently false and they did it for no other reason than to gain more business, it made me—it made me crazy.” Kalman elaborated that he was depressed for a period of time and had many sleepless nights. In addition, Kalman testified that he and Wasserman spent “an inordinate amount of time” trying to figure out what to do to make sure Zell did not believe the untrue allegations in the voicemail. Kalman also testified that the voicemail worried him because Miramar was a brand new company and the voicemail “literally could have ended [his] career instantly because anyone who has a financial advisor knows that the number one issue is do you trust that person because if you do, then -9-  you trust what they’re telling you is correct and that they have your best interests at heart, and us being fiduciaries means that by law we must.” ¶ 23 Kalman testified that he filed the lawsuit because it was the only way to clear his name. Kalman testified that prior to hiring the law firm representing him in the case, he and his attorneys discussed legal fees. Kalman agreed to pay the law firm all legal fees, costs, and expenses incurred in litigating the case. Over Hefter’s objection, Kalman testified that he reviewed the law firm’s billing statements and that the firm spent approximately 730 hours over more than four years working on the case. ¶ 24 On cross-examination, Kalman testified about his employment history, using the BrokerCheck screenshot Hefter attached to his December 6, 2018, e-mail to refresh his recollection. Kalman noted that he was registered as a broker with R.D. Kushnir & Co. from 1990 to 1998, Liss Financial Services from 1998 to 2001, Shamrock Partners, Ltd., from 2001 to 2002, Phillip Louis Trading, Inc., from 2002 to 2003, Jersey Shore Trading Group, Inc., from 2003 to 2005, Foresight Investments from 2005 to 2016, and Saxony Securities from 2016 to 2018. In addition, in 1994, Kalman founded Kalman-Kushnir Capital (KKC) with Sara Kushnir, Richard’s wife. ¶ 25 Kalman further testified on cross-examination that he is not aware of Hefter contacting any clients except for Zell. Kalman also acknowledged that he has no “actual damages.” However, he stated that he was “distraught for a while” that someone would create lies about him and his history for the sole purpose of poaching a client. He also suffered from “personal angst” and lost many nights of sleep over the matter. Kalman acknowledged that Zell did not pull any business from Miramar but explained that Zell became “tentative for a period of time” and only “got past it” after she became satisfied that none of the allegations had any basis. Kalman admitted that a couple of - 10 - weeks after Hefter sent the voicemail to Zell, he (Kalman) and Zell exchanged friendly texts in which he asked Zell about her personal life, set up a lunch meeting, and invited her to Hawaii. ¶ 26 2. Defendant Steven Hefter ¶ 27 Kalman called Hefter as an adverse witness. Hefter testified that Wells Fargo charged clients a percentage fee based on the value of assets under investment management. Thus, the more money Wells Fargo had under investment management, the more money Wells Fargo earned. Hefter estimated that at the time he left the voicemail for Zell, Wells Fargo had approximately $2 billion under investment management. 5 Hefter further testified that for the 2022 calendar year, he reported $5,680,508 in taxable income on his tax return. Hefter estimated his net worth at $25 million. ¶ 28 Hefter testified that early in 2018, an associate working at Wells Fargo was attempting to solicit Zell as a client. By November or December 2018, however, it became clear that Zell was not interested in hiring Wells Fargo to manage her assets. At that point, Wells Fargo was “going to try to explain to her what was available to her, but [they] were no longer counting on bringing her in as a client.” ¶ 29 Kalman’s attorney asked Hefter about the identity of “the guy” he refers to in the voicemail. Hefter initially responded that “the guy” is “Robert Kalman and his association with Richard Kushnir.” When Kalman’s attorney noted that Hefter referred only to a singular “guy,” Hefter stated that “the guy” he is referring to in the voicemail is Kalman. Hefter explained: “In that statement, that whole voice recording that you heard, I was saying that I had personal knowledge of someone who had money with two firm—two-person firm 5 The parties also stipulated that Wells Fargo had a “reported equity of 13.9 billion [dollars] at the end of 2023.” - 11 -  whose one person committed fraud and the other person did not, but the firm lost all the money to the client that we had known because one person goes down, the other person goes down with them [sic]. And my concern with Rivka was that if he [Kalman] had association with this guy who had been barred from FINRA that she could indeed be in trouble. If they did have another situation like that, even if Robert Kalman wasn’t the one who did it, if his partner for 30 years did something wrong, then she could be in trouble.” Referring to Kalman, Hefter added that he “tried to encompass everything that [he] was reading [because] it was the worst thing that [he] had ever seen for a broker.” ¶ 30 Hefter also stated that Kalman had “loads, loads of issues.” Kalman’s attorney then asked Hefter “What issues did Mr. Kalman have?” Hefter responded, “Well, he was being sued by a public company.” Kalman’s attorney objected. A sidebar was held outside the presence of the jury. During the sidebar, which included Hefter, the trial court first indicated that Kalman’s attorney had “opened the door” with the question. As the sidebar continued, the trial court stated: “The guy you seem to be going with having defrauded investors in the past. That’s what you said—sir, sir, this case is not about your concerns or your interpretations. We are going to follow the rules of law here. That’s why we spent the hours we spent last week going over a Motion in Limine, not for you to turn it around and start telling the jury what your concerns are. The concerns are irrelevant. It’s what you said. That’s why I asked you, specifically, sir, do you have any evidence or any knowledge that Mr. Kalman ever defrauded an investor?” Hefter responded in the negative. The trial court then instructed that when questioning resumed before the jury, Kalman’s counsel was to ask the final question that the court had posed during the - 12 - sidebar and Hefter was to give the answer he had provided in response. When the jury returned, the trial court struck the question and answer asked just prior to the sidebar. Examination continued pursuant to the judge’s instructions, with Hefter acknowledging that he had no evidence that Kalman ever defrauded an investor. Moreover, he admitted that he has never apologized to Kalman or issued a written retraction of the statement in the voicemail. ¶ 31 During examination by his own attorney, Hefter testified that when he looked on the FINRA website, “there were notations under Mr. Kalman’s brokerage—broker check that indicated some issues.” Hefter’s attorney then asked Hefter, “[W]hat did you find? What were your concerns?” With no objection pending, the judge ordered counsel to the bench. The following exchange occurred during the sidebar that ensued: “THE COURT: Did I not issue a Motion in Limine to say that we are not going to go into *** Mr. [Richard] Kushnir’s records? MR. ERICKSON [Hefter’s attorney]: He’s been prepped multiple times. He’s going to work within the parameters of what you said. MR. UDELL [Kalman’s attorney]: He is not though, Judge. There is nothing on Robert Kalman’s FINRA records. This is all Kushnir, again. THE COURT: Wait a minute. What is it you’re trying to elicit by this question? MR. ERICKSON: The things that are admissible and that would follow the rule. The expelled firms and the long time relationship with the Kushnirs and Mr. Kushnir’s problematic history, all in general terms. THE COURT: You’re not focusing that this has to do with Kushnir [sic]. Do you have anything concerning Kalman? - 13 -  MR. ERICKSON: There will be some—[I] anticipate there will be some testimony about that. THE COURT: What? MR. ERICKSON: I can speak up. There will be a discussion, I expect[,] of a lot of smaller firms moving around a lot. THE COURT: No, there won’t. MR. ERICKSON: Those are his concerns. Those are part of his concerns. MR. UDELL: If I can add, Judge, he was just asking about the check you did on Kalman. And now he is going to go off and say that that produced results of firms that has nothing to do with this. It’s the same thing. THE COURT: I’ve said it before, I’ll say it one more time, you can ask anything that has to do with Kalman, okay. MR. ERICKSON: But— THE COURT: That’s it. MR. ERICKSON: But I can ask— THE COURT: You can ask him if in his checks, he had concerns about Mr. Kushnir. But you are trying to paint a picture that Kalman is Kushnir and that’s what I have said throughout last week and throughout this trial. Now, I expect you to abide by that, Counsel. MR. ERICKSON: Okay. *** What were his concerns? THE COURT: What? MR. ERICKSON: What were his concerns with Mr. Kalman. THE COURT: Well, his concerns have to be based on something objective. MR. UDELL: Kalman. - 14 -  THE COURT: Kalman. He’s already answered that Kalman has nothing on his record. MR. ERICKSON: Correct. THE COURT: So what are you trying to do here? You are trying to put Kushnir on his record. MR. ERICKSON: I’m trying to give him an opportunity to explain the concerns that he saw in the public record. MR. UDELL: It has nothing to do with Kalman. THE COURT: The concerns don’t have to do with Kalman, how are they relevant? MR. ERICKSON: They were his concerns. They were the reason that he made— left the voice mail and they dovetail to what he said exactly. THE COURT: No, they don’t. I’m trying very hard to give you leeway. I know you don’t totally disagree with my ruling [sic], but it is my ruling. MR. ERICKSON: I understand. THE COURT: So you’re to restrict your questions to things that Kalman did. If he has concerns about Kushnir, he can say that in his investigation of Kalman, he felt things about his former partner, Kushnir, that caused him concerns. That’s it. MR. ERICKSON: Okay. THE COURT: All right. Move on. MR. ERICKSON: Can I ask him if he heard of all of that, because I want to make sure— THE COURT: No. You phrase the questions that is outside the scope of what he is, there will be an objection and I will rule. - 15 -  MR. ERICKSON: Thank you.” ¶ 32 After the sidebar, testimony resumed as follows: “Q. [by Hefter’s attorney] When you looked at Mr. Kalman, what were your concerns? A. Okay. I’m going to say this so I don’t get into anything that’s controversial, but I was concerned that three firms he had been with— MR. UDELL: Objection, your Honor. BY THE WITNESS: A.—had been expelled. THE COURT: Hold on. BY THE WITNESS: A. His firm, they were firms that he worked for. THE COURT: Excuse me, sir. When I say there is an objection, you stop talking. The record will reflect that the witness just shrugged his shoulders like the Court doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I am not going to tolerate that, sir. Thank you. Objection sustained. Move on.” Hefter’s attorney then asked him what his concerns were when he looked at Kalman’s records. Hefter responded that he “saw things *** that would worry [him] referring [Kalman] to anybody to manage money for them.” Asked the nature of what he saw, Hefter responded, “I don’t know if I can say that he had been accused of gross malfeasance.” Kalman’s attorney’s objection to Hefter’s response was sustained. ¶ 33 Hefter further testified that he had concerns about Kalman’s partnerships. He explained that when there are only two or three partners in a firm, “if one of them makes a mistake and loses - 16 - a lot of money for a client, and that client tries to recover the money, I’ve seen situations where they are unable to recover because it’s a small firm *** regardless of which broker did the harm.” Hefter stated that he was alarmed by Richard’s record because Richard was barred by FINRA and Richard “was associated with Mr. Kalman for the next 25 years and they remained partners.” During Hefter’s testimony, Zell’s December 31, 2018, e-mail was admitted into evidence, portions of which Hefter read to the jury. Also admitted into evidence was the January 1, 2019, e-mail from Hefter to Murray. ¶ 34 Hefter’s attorney asked him why in the voicemail he used the phrase “there is some concern *** with the guy you seem to be going with having defrauded investors in the past”? Hefter responded: “You know, in retrospect, obviously, I wish I could have that back. I was leaving a voice mail. I was trying to incorporate a lot of things that I was seeing all at once. And things that I was seeing, instead of using the words that I was actually seeing on the screen, I used that word, which is probably not the best word, because I didn’t expect it to be taken literally. I expected this was just a phone call to plead with [Zell]. She called me back [sic] and then I would read to her what I saw and she can judge for herself. So it was an off the cuff not well thought out phrase. And the rest of the e-mail, though, was much more about what I was concerned about, which was the smallness of the firms and the other things that I had seen online.” ¶ 35 Hefter testified that he did not communicate anything to Zell that was not in the public record. Hefter denied that he ever stated “with certainty that anyone had defrauded investors in the past.” He stated that the voicemail contained “qualifications and expressions of uncertainty.” He explained, “I was uncertain and so I said that I don’t know that that’s the situation” and that he did - 17 - not “know much more than what the filings are reporting about what was done in the past.” Hefter reiterated that, in retrospect, he should have used a word other than “defraud.” Hefter also wanted to make sure that Zell “dotted [her] Is and crossed [her] Ts,” meaning that he wanted to make sure she had done her due diligence. Hefter testified that he never told Zell that any of the Kalman partnerships “had ever been convicted after defrauding investors.” Hefter acknowledged that in correspondence to Wells Fargo he denied saying that Zell’s broker had defrauded investors, explaining that at the time he made the statements to Wells Fargo, he did not remember saying that anyone or any firm had done so. ¶ 36 3. Plaintiff’s Partner Max Wasserman ¶ 37 Wasserman, Kalman’s partner in Miramar, testified that he was “stunned” when he heard the voicemail Hefter left for Zell. He then became “very concerned and then actually scared.” Wasserman understood that “the guy” Hefter referred to in the voicemail was Kalman. He explained that because Miramar acquires clients through word of mouth, being accused of fraud “is a problem” and “could basically shut [the] firm down.” ¶ 38 Wasserman further testified that after he heard the voicemail, his relationship with Kalman became “very tenuous for a little period of time.” Wasserman quizzed Kalman thoroughly and questioned whether he missed something in his due diligence prior to forming Miramar with Kalman. Wasserman also researched various websites. Wasserman testified that BrokerCheck indicated that Kalman’s record was “clean” with “no defraudment, no nothing.” Similarly, the SEC website reflected that Kalman had “[z]ero complaints against him and no fraud.” A Google search indicated that Kalman was “a very well, respectful advisor.” Ultimately, Wasserman concluded that the allegations in the voicemail were “inaccurate.” Wasserman testified that based on what he - 18 - knows as Kalman’s partner and through his investigation, neither Kalman nor Miramar has ever defrauded an investor. ¶ 39 Wasserman testified that even after he was assured that the allegations were untrue, there was still tension between him and Kalman for several months. Kalman felt guilty that the voicemail may have affected his relationship with Wasserman and the firm. Wasserman was “very upset” and wondered if Hefter made similar statements to others. Wasserman noted that the financial services industry is built on trust, and there is no guarantee that a client will remain with a particular firm. Wasserman and Kalman focused on “trying to contain any damages [the voicemail] may [have] cause[d] and trying to ascertain *** if anybody spread any rumors about [them].” Wasserman believed that Miramar was damaged because of the voicemail but could not say if the firm lost business. ¶ 40 On cross-examination, Wasserman acknowledged that his investigation did not reveal a single person other than Zell who heard Hefter’s voicemail. Wasserman also acknowledged that Miramar has since experienced “exponential growth” and that Zell remains a Miramar client. ¶ 41 4. Wells Fargo’s Corporate Representative Jennifer Johnson ¶ 42 Jennifer Johnson, the designated corporate representative of Wells Fargo, testified that late in 2018 or early in 2019, Wells Fargo received a complaint from Zell about a voicemail and an e- mail she received from Hefter. Zell’s complaint triggered an investigation by Wells Fargo. Johnson acknowledged that Wells Fargo was not aware of any finding or allegations that Kalman defrauded investors in the past. As part of the investigation, a representative of Wells Fargo interviewed Hefter and Zell and communicated with Kalman’s attorney. Johnson testified that the investigation was closed in April 2019. Wells Fargo did not discipline Hefter at the conclusion of the investigation because it did not find anything that constituted an industry violation and it felt that - 19 - the information Hefter discussed was “substantially true” in that he premised his remarks with “many conditional statements.” Wells Fargo never issued an apology to Kalman or a retraction of the statement in the voicemail. ¶ 43 E. Jury Verdict ¶ 44 Following Johnson’s testimony, the parties rested and presented closing arguments. The jury returned the following verdict. As to count I, the jury found Hefter liable to Kalman for defamation per se. The jury awarded Kalman compensatory damages from Hefter in the amount of 50% of all legal fees, presumed damages of $100,000, and punitive damages of $2.5 million. As to count II, the jury found Hefter liable to Kalman for false light invasion of privacy and awarded compensatory damages from Hefter to Kalman in the amount of $100,000. Finally, the jury found Wells Fargo liable for compensatory damages in the amount of 50% of all legal fees and punitive damages of $25 million. The trial court entered judgment on May 23, 2024. ¶ 45 F. Posttrial Proceedings ¶ 46 All parties filed posttrial motions arguing flaws in the verdict. Hefter argued for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) as to both counts or, alternatively, a remittitur of the jury’s punitive damages award. In addition, Hefter argued that he was entitled to a new trial due to prejudicial errors made by the trial court. Wells Fargo also moved for JNOV or, in the alternative, a remittitur of the damages or a new trial. Kalman argued that the judgment order entered by the court should be amended to include the amount of attorney fees (rather than the statement of 50% of all legal fees). The trial court granted Hefter’s and Wells Fargo’s motions in part, providing a JNOV as to count II in Hefter’s favor, eliminating the award of attorney fees as compensatory damages, and remitting the punitive damages against Hefter from $2.5 million to $1.1 million and against Wells Fargo from $25 million to $1.1 million. Following a motion to reconsider by Kalman, - 20 - which was denied, an amended judgment was entered. Pursuant to the amended judgment, (1) Hefter was found liable to Kalman for defamation per se in the amount of $100,000 in presumed damages and $1.1 million in punitive damages, (2) the judgment entered against Hefter as to false light invasion of privacy was vacated, and (3) Wells Fargo was found liable to Kalman in the amount of $1.1 million in punitive damages. This appeal by Hefter and cross-appeal by Kalman ensued. ¶ 47 II. ANALYSIS ¶ 48 On appeal, Hefter raises two principal issues. He first argues that a new trial is necessary to cure various prejudicial errors committed by the trial court with respect to its evidentiary rulings. Alternatively, Hefter asserts that the punitive damages award, as reduced, is excessive and requires further remittitur. In his cross-appeal, Kalman contends that the trial court erred in remitting the punitive damages award and asks that we restore the full award of punitive damages. Before addressing the merits of this appeal, we are compelled to