Normanbhoy v. McDonald's Corporation, et. al. (N.D. Ill. Hon. Jeffrey Cole, September 30, 2008). We successfully represented McDonald's Corporation and its subsidiary during a preliminary injunction proceeding and evidentiary hearing that involved real estate litigation. Foot & Ankle Clinics of America, LLC v. Alameda, Case No. 08 CH 24657 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty., September 19, 2008). We successfully represented a medical practice in a lawsuit to enforce the restrictive covenants in a former employee's employment agreement. Upon learning of the defendant's efforts to establish a competing medical practice and solicit our client's patients, we filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order, which resulted in a court order prohibiting the defendant from violating the restrictive covenant. In less than three months since the motion was filed, we obtained a favorable settlement for our client in which the terms of the temporary restraining order were made permanent for two years from the date of defendant's termination. First Specialty Insurance Corporation v. Federal Street Advisors, Inc., et al., No. 06 CH 1435 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty., April 1, 2008). In an insurance recovery action, we acquired summary judgment on behalf of our client, an investment advisor firm, and against its insurer. The Court held that the insurer had a duty to defend our client under a claims-made financial advisors professional liability insurance policy in connection with an underlying lawsuit seeking damages of approximately $9.5 million. LaSalle Technology Inc. v. ABN AMRO Inc., et al., No. 03-11931 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty., November 19, 2007). We recently obtained summary judgment in favor of our clients, a software development firm and a securities brokerage firm, in a multimillion dollar securities fraud and common law fraud action. Trossman v. Philpsborn, et al., No. 1-04-0588 (Ill. App. Ct. June 8, 2007). On June 8, 2007, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of our client, Don C. Trossman, and against various defendants, completely disposing of all claims against Trossman. The appellate court’s decision was made following a successful (and seldom granted) petition for rehearing regarding a novel issue that could have affected business contracts in the State of Illinois. The appellate court held that the Illinois Supreme Court does not recognize an equitable theory known as self-piercing or reverse-piercing of the corporate veil, which would allow those who form corporations to disregard the corporate shield when it suits their purpose. Levenfeld v. Boyd, No. 04 L 2742 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty.) and No. 02 C 4735 (N.D. Ill.). Successful motions to dismiss on various grounds brought on behalf of our client, an accounting firm, in companion cases involving allegations of federal securities fraud, common law fraud, and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. For opinion dismissing federal court case, see Levenfeld v. Boyd, 2003 WL 22532801 (Nov. 6, 2003).) In Levenfeld v. Boyd, No. 04 L 2742 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty.) and No. 02 C 4735 (N.D. Ill.), we brought successful motions to dismiss on behalf of Crowe Chizek and Company (“Crowe Chizek”) based on statute of limitations and other arguments in companion cases in Illinois state and federal court alleging federal securities fraud, common law fraud, and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. See Levenfeld v. Boyd, 2003 WL 22532801 (Nov. 6, 2003). Our efforts resulted in the disposition of claims against our client Crowe Chizek in excess of $1.25 million. McRaith v. BDO Seidman LLP, No. 05 L 10413 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty., Law Div. March 22, 2007). (Trial court grants with prejudice a section 2-619 motion to dismiss all claims asserted by the Illinois Department of Insurance as Liquidator seeking up to $45 million in damages against our client, BDO Seidman LLP.) In McRaith v. BDO Seidman LLP, No. 05 L 10413 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty., Law Div.), we successfully represented BDO Seidman LLP (“BDO”) in an accounting malpractice action brought by the Director of the Illinois Department of Insurance as Liquidator. On March 22, 2007, the circuit court granted with prejudice a section 2-619 motion to dismiss all claims against BDO on an imputation and in pari delicto theory. The court’s ruling was a complete victory for our client, in a case where the plaintiffs had alleged as much as $45 million in damages. Previously in the same case, we had obtained certification of a novel issue involving the validity of a tolling agreement.