claim. To establish a claim for conversion, a party must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the following elements: (1) a right in the property; (2) the right to immediate, absolute, and unconditional possession of the property; (3) defendant’s unauthorized and wrongful assumption of control, dominion, or ownership over the property; and (4) a demand for possession. Ruiz v. Wolf, 250 Ill. App. 3d 121, 124, 621 N.E.2d 67 (1993); Seymour v. Williams, 249 Ill. App. 3d 264, 272, 618 N.E.2d 966 (1993). Defendants argue that Gus cannot assert a claim for conversion because the assets allegedly converted were intangible in nature. In this state, however, parties may recover for conversion of intangible assets. See Conant v. Karris, 165 Ill. App. 3d 783, 792, 500 N.E.2d 757 (1987) (<HOLDING>). Assuming that conversion of intangible assets
holding that access to confidential information didnt transform janitorial staff into confidential employees under branti holding records did not qualify as exempt confidential commercial information under exemption 4 because the information was not actually confidential holding that plaintiff could state a claim for conversion of confidential information holding complaint was not based on a conversion claim but was a declaratory judgment action thus not governed by conversion statute of limitations holding that electronic records may be subject to a claim for conversion