Ozinga Brothers Legal Fight Heats Up as CEO Responds

The Ozinga family feud reached its first major crossroads this week, as the CEO of the Chicago concrete dynasty Marty Ozinga IV deflected his brothers’ first strikes in court.

Cook County Circuit Judge Wiliam Sullivan on Thursday denied Justin and Karl Ozinga’s bid for a temporary restraining order that would have blocked or delayed a controversial $50 million acquisition of a concrete industry competitor, clearing the way for CEO Marty Ozinga IV to proceed with the deal before an imminent contract deadline on Saturday, according to court records.

The ruling marks an early victory for Marty and three other siblings, who argued that the lawsuit was an act of corporate “gamesmanship” designed to force a buyout of the dissenting brothers’ interests in the multi-generational concrete company forming the base of the family’s wealth.

The firm’s success as a major concrete supplier to Midwest developers and other construction project managers allowed its heirs — the six sons of the late Martin Ozinga III — to inherit equal 15.3 percent shares of the eponymous company, while their cousin Jeffrey Ozinga was given the remaining 8 percent.

As the company grew, the family made investments in real estate, technology and other sectors, including an effort to construct a 6 million-square-foot underground storage facility on the site of a former steel mill on Chicago’s Southeast Side. The project known as “The Invert” still hasn’t broken ground or gained final city approval.

Sullivan’s ruling cleared the way for the Ozinga company’s acquisition of a local competitor, which is unnamed throughout the public filings. But it’s unclear if the purchase was scheduled to close by the end of this week as previously planned. A spokesperson for the Ozinga firm declined to comment, while an attorney for Justin and Karl said Friday the other brothers had an “apparent intention” to close the deal.

“Justin and Karl remain committed to protecting their legacy, their inheritance and the great company built by their father, Martin Ozinga III,” their lawyer John C. Sciaccotta said in a statement. “They look forward to the next stage in the lawsuit, legal proceedings which will further develop the story set forth in the original complaint.”

Sullivan’s ruling only denied Justin and Karl’s request for emergency relief, meaning the case will continue to be heard. The dissenting brothers — whose lawsuit was filed after they requested to sell each of their shares in Ozinga — could still win a judgment against Marty, the CEO, at a later stage of litigation.

Legal filings leading up to Thursday’s ruling regarding the acquisition show a family dynamic that shifted from brotherly love to open warfare within months. Exhibits show the $50 million acquisition of the competing concrete firm was first proposed in 2024, and the response was unanimous support. Karl said he was in favor, while Justin responded to the proposal with a “heart” emoji reaction.

Civility evaporated by November. Marty alleges that Justin and Karl’s sudden opposition coincided exactly with their demand to be bought out of the century-old concrete business. Marty claims Justin admitted the real issue was that the owner of the competitor to be bought would “get paid before him,” legal documents show.

The filings captured a raw text exchange on Nov. 17 where Justin warned his brothers: “If you guys think you can ignore me and expect me to go away silently, I will bring hell down on all of you.”

Marty attempted to de-escalate in his response, which reiterated that the contemplated purchase was scheduled to close by the end of 2025. “Justin, I love you and I’m happy to discuss anything with you at anytime. … I think it’s in everyone’s best interest for us to continue towards rebuilding trust,” Marty said in a text.

Justin didn’t take it well: “Please stop with the love of brotherhood and business decision. That is an ignorant, manipulative statement,” he wrote back.

The legal battle so far centers on whether the brothers could use a “Special Fiduciary Committee” to veto the deal. While Justin and Karl argued that trust rules required a unanimous vote for any investment, Aaron Ozinga, who agrees with Marty in the dispute, produced a 2022 email from Justin himself stating the committee’s power “has nothing to do with operational investments of the company.”

“My only understanding as to why Karl or Justin now oppose the transaction after supporting it for months is that they feel they should be bought out first,” Aaron Ozinga wrote in an affidavit submitted to the court.

Meanwhile, Marty is steadfast that the acquisition presents a strong business reward.

“To be clear, if we cannot proceed with the closing on the acquisition … this week, then I fully believe that [the seller] may terminate the transaction,” Marty wrote in a court filing on Wednesday.

The seller recently indicated another party is also interested in acquiring their company, Marty wrote, adding that the $50 million acquisition has taken years of Ozinga’s effort and hundreds of thousands of dollars in professional fees to organize.

“There is not another opportunity like it that I can foresee, nor a similar one that I can remember,” Marty said in court filings. “The damage to our organization if we cannot proceed and if [the seller] walks away are at least $50 million, and likely more.”

The lawsuit is next scheduled for a March 19 court hearing before Sullivan, public records show.

“To be clear, I love both my brothers and deeply regret that any disagreement with them has come to this,” Marty Ozinga IV said at the conclusion of his filing submitted Wednesday.