The litigation matters that RDAP handles are diverse, spanning many different industries and practice areas.

The following are some examples of matters that RDAP’s partners have handled, are handling, and/or have materially assisted in handling and reflect the diverse backgrounds and interests of RDAP's partners:



Arbitration & Alternative Dispute Resolution

  • Lefkowitz v. HWF Holdings, LLC, 2009 WL 3806299 (Del. Ch. Nov. 13, 2009) – Case involving contractual indemnity claims being brought by client arising out of purchase of business from former owners, who filed suit in Delaware Chancery court in attempt to enjoin filing of arbitration by client.  Court granted our client’s motion to dismiss, which subsequently prompted favorable confidential settlement.

  • KIK Int’l LLC v. Satish Shah et al., Case No. 3:06-CV-712 RM (N.D. Ind.) & AAA Case No. 51-180-Y-01570-06 – Cases involving indemnity claims by client for breach of representations and warranties regarding GAAP accounting, financial statements, and condition of assets arising out of purchase of business from former owners.  Following a three-week arbitration hearing, a panel of arbitrators returned a unanimous award in favor of client for an eight-figure sum (the maximum amount of contractual indemnity the client could recover from former owners in arbitration), finding evidence of deliberate misrepresentations relating to financial condition of acquired company, which subsequently prompted favorable settlement of non-arbitrable fraud and statutory claims of client – all of which was in addition to seven-figure working capital award to client by Ernst & Young LLP.  See also Shah v. KIK Int’l LLC, 2007 WL 2746879 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 18, 2007) (denying request by former owners to enjoin arbitrations filed by client regarding working capital claims and indemnity claims).

  • Anderson v. Golf Mill Ford, Inc., 383 Ill. App. 3d 474, 890 N.E.2d. 1023 (1st Dist. 2008) – Affirming Circuit Court’s grant of client/defendant’s petition to confirm arbitral award by AAA, and denying plaintiff’s cross-petition to vacate.

  • CPL, Inc. v. Fragchem Corp., 512 F.3d 389 (7th Cir. 2008) – Reversing dismissal of client-plaintiff’s collection suit on basis of arbitration clause in expired contract.


Class Action & Consumer

  • Perry v. First National Bank, No. 05 C 1470, 2005 WL 4709219 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 13, 2005), aff’d, 459 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2006) – Dismissing putative class actions arising under Fair Credit Reporting Act’s (FCRA’s) provisions governing accessing of consumer credit reports.

  • Bonner v. CorTrust Bank, N.A., No. 2:05-CV-137 PS, 2006 WL 1980183 (N.D. Ind. July 12, 2006) – Dismissing putative class actions arising under FCRA provisions governing accessing of consumer credit reports.

  • Winarski v. Board of Trustees of NW Indiana Regional Council of Carpenters Pension Trust Fund, 2005 WL 1221594 (N.D. Ind. May 19, 2005) – Case involving ERISA fiduciary duty claims brought by putative class of participants in multiemployer pension plan.  Court granted client pension fund’s motion to stay duplicative participant claims in favor of similar claims brought by client before class certified, ultimately prompting favorable settlement of duplicative putative class-action lawsuit.

  • Garrett v. Rentgrow, Inc., 2005 WL 1563162 (N.D. Ill. 2005) – Case involved claims under Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA), asserting client violated ICFA by refusing to reconsider denial of rent application based on allegedly erroneous information in consumer credit report.  In cited decision, court dismissed claims against client.

  • Whiting Corp. v. MSI Mktg., Inc., No. 02 CH 6332 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Cty. Apr. 3, 2003) – Case involved approximately 50 consolidated cases arising from fax advertising.  Court granted dismissal of claims asserted under ICFA against all defendants, including client.

  • Bober v. Glaxo Wellcome PLC, 246 F.3d 934 (7th Cir. 2001) – Case involving ICFA claims by putative class representative with respect to sale and marketing of OTC and prescription     Zantac®.  Trial court dismissed claims before class was certified, and dismissal was upheld on appeal, on grounds that statements at issue were not misleading as a matter of law and statutory exception for regulated activities applied.

  • Counsel for large telecommunications company since 2002 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in connection with a series of class actions arising out of fiber optic cable right-of-way disputes.  Also, the firm has represented the same telecommunications company in connection with adversary proceedings pending in United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

  • Linda Greene Peleschak, et al. v. Verex Assurance Inc., 651 N.E.2d 562 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 1995) – Case involving representation of insurer in both trial and appellate court in a class action brought by mortgage insurance holders arising out of insurer’s practice of not refunding unearned premiums under $25 on mortgage guaranty insurance.

  • Defense of corporation against claims arising under federal Truth-In-Lending Act (TILA) and arising under ICFA by customers of a discount dining card.

  • Counsel for national automobile dealer in various consumer suits brought under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), ICFA, and the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

  • Defense of large national retailer in numerous class actions and derivative suits arising from allegations of fraudulent auto repairs brought by a California regulatory agency.


Commercial & Contractual

  • BP Amoco Chemical Co. v. Flint Hills Resources LLC (N.D. Ill.) – Case involving contractual indemnity and fraud claims asserted against client by purchaser of chemicals business relating to condition of assets, production capacity of plant, and environmental issues.  After a ten-week jury trial, the jury denied the opposing party’s claims for fraud and rejected opposing party’s claims for approximately 60% of the contractual indemnity damages it was seeking.

  • Nat’l Accident Ins. Underwriters, Inc. v. Citibank, N.A., 533 F. Supp. 2d 784 (N.D. Ill. 2007), aff’d, 543 F.3d 907 (7th Cir. 2008), pet. for reh’g & reh’g en banc denied (2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 1679 (2009) – Case involving $17 million in check conversion claims asserted against client.  Trial court awarded summary judgment to client on all claims, and appellate court affirmed trial court’s summary judgment ruling in its entirety.

  • Boiko v Johnstone Co., No. 05 L 14649 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Cty. Jan. 11, 2008) – This lawsuit involved claims that a lubricant supplied by the client/defendant was unsuitable for use in HVAC pumps, resulting in alleged premature failure of such equipment.  In a series of rulings, the Court granted the client’s motions to dismiss.  Defenses included the UCC’s provisions for disclaimer of implied warranties and limitations of remedies, statute of limitations, and the economic loss doctrine.

  • 360Networks Tennessee, LLC v. Illinois Central RR Co., 2007 WL 1523880 (N.D. Ill. May 10, 2007) – Case involving disputes as to who must pay for costs of relocating fiber optic cable network installed on railroad right-of-way.  Trial court granted partial summary judgment for client network operator and denied cross-motion for summary judgment filed by railroad.  Case is now in post-trial motion practice following a week-long jury trial on the remainder of the case in June 2010.

  • Heartland Rail Corp. v. Railroad Dev. Corp., 2003 WL 21145635 (N.D. Ill. May 15, 2003) – Case involving dispute over sale of railroad to client for appraised value.  Trial court awarded partial summary judgment to client for claims brought by other shareholder, ultimately prompting favorable settlement of remaining claims involving asserted appraiser bias.

  • Broadmark Capital Corp. v. GolbalNet, Inc., 169 F. Supp. 2d 873 (N.D. Ill. 2001) – Case involving claims by client investment banking firm that defendant was obligated to pay for introduction to third-party investor.  Trial court granted judgment in favor of client on the pleadings.


Real Estate, Historic Preservation & Land Use

  • Lake Erie Land Co. v. Chesterton Development Partners, LLC, (Sup. Ct. Porter Co., Ind.) – Case involving contract and tort claims relating to real estate development agreement.  After lawsuit filed and receiver appointed, claims and counterclaims were successfully resolved, along with related foreclosure proceedings.
     
  • Barnes v. AIMCO Hyde Park Tower, LLC, No. 1-09-85 (Ill. App. Ct. Aug. 21, 2009), aff’g, No. 08 CH 29092 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Cty. Jan. 7, 2009) – The trial court granted the client/landlord’s motion to dismiss a putative class action filed pursuant to the Chicago Residential Landlord & Tenant Ordinance on the basis of an arbitration clause in the named plaintiff’s lease.  Affirmed on appeal.
     
  • Miller v. Ellis, No. 08 L 353 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Cty. July 24, 2009) - After the client/defendant tendered to the plaintiff the full damages conceivably available on her individual claims under the Chicago Residential Landlord & Tenant Ordinance, the Court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss a putative class action as moot.
     
  • Miller v. Herman, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54860 (N.D. Ill. July 15, 2008) – Case involving claims against client general contractor under federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act relating to construction of residence.  Trial court granted client’s motion to dismiss all federal claims as legally insufficient, and it dismissed all remaining state law claims on jurisdictional grounds.
     
  • 600 Fairbanks Ct. Dev. Co. v. Rosenberg, 06 CH 25655 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Cty. Aug. 9, 2007) – This lawsuit was filed on behalf of a client LLC, engaged in the development of a high-rise condominium project, against the LLC’s former manager for breaches of fiduciary duties.  A threshold dispute arose as to the claim by the defendant that, as the former manager of the LLC, he was entitled to advancement of fees by the client/plaintiff for his defense in the lawsuit.  That motion was denied and the case settled shortly thereafter.
     
  • Representation of bank in connection with naming rights dispute with landlord arising under commercial lease agreement.  After lawsuit filed and preliminary injunction and related evidentiary motions filed and argued, case was successfully settled for client.
     
  • Successful representation of national automobile dealer against a claim seeking an order of specific performance to convey a 30-acre tract of commercial realty to another party.
  • McDaniel v. Qwest Communications Corp., 2006 WL 1476110 (N.D. Ill. 2006) – Case involving putative class-action claims brought by land owners against various telecommunications companies, including client, for asserted trespass.
     
  • Representation of various condominium associations in disputes with developers, general contractors, and other construction professionals with respect to construction defects (e.g., water intrusion), as well as developer's fiduciary duties as to reserves and budgeting.
     
  • Successful defense of a general contractor against a multi-million dollar delay and design defect claim brought by a structural steel subcontractor against the contractor on a $600 million plus construction project.Prosecution of and defense of mechanics lien and bond claims, as well as related contract claims, involving construction projects.
  • Lombard Historical Comm’n v. Village of Lombard, 852 N.E.2d 916 (Ill. App. 2d Dist. 2006) – Case involving demolition of historic DuPage Theater, reversing trial court determination that clients National Historic Trust and Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois lacked standing to bring challenge.
     
  • Friends of the Parks v. Chicago Park Dist., 203 Ill. 2d 312, 786 N.E.2d 161 (2003) – Case involving challenge to renovations of Soldier Field, brought in trial court, and ultimately argued before Illinois Supreme Court.


Criminal Defense, Internal Investigations & Related Civil Proceedings

  • Limone v. United States, 579 F.3d 79 (1st Cir. 2009), aff’g, 497 F. Supp. 2d 143 (D. Mass. 2007) – Case involving federal civil rights action brought against various governmental and individual defendants for framing four individuals for a murder that they did not commit.  Client was son of one of four framed individuals, who died after serving 28 years in prison, before fraud was discovered.  Following a bench trial, the court entered judgment in favor of all of the plaintiffs, awarding the largest civil verdict ever against the United States, which was affirmed on appeal.  See also Limone v. United States, 336 F. Supp. 2d 18 (D. Mass. 2004) (denying in their entirety government’s motions to dismiss based on the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), statute of limitations, and challenges to legal sufficiency of emotional distress and loss of consortium claims).

  • Defended Fortune 50 company in connection with non-public federal criminal price-fixing investigation, ultimately resulting in federal government’s decision not to indict the company or its former officers.

  • Conducted non-public internal investigation for Fortune 100 company into allegations respecting asserted racketeering activities relating to claims processing activities.

  • Asserted civil forfeiture restitution claims on behalf of pension fund whose former trustee took kick-back in connection with real estate investment undertaken by pension fund.


Employment

  • Service as employment and labor counsel to significant employer of unionized labor force, which has included defending the employer against charges of discrimination and assisting the employer in codifying written work rules for unionized labor.

  • Service as national coordinating counsel for large national automobile dealer network in terms of EEOC complaints and related proceedings.

  • Hieshetter v. Ubiquity Brands, LLC, (Cir. Ct. Cook Co. Ill.) – Case involving claims against client by terminated employees for severance, bonus payments, statutory wages and attorneys’ fees.  Trial court granted motion to dismiss claims prior to any discovery.

  • U.S. Office Prod. v. DeMarco, (Ill. App. 4th Dist.) - On appeal brought by client-plaintiff, reversing trial court’s denial of preliminary injunction against former officers and employees who formed competing business while still employed by client.

  • Woodfield Group v. Nuehring, (Ill. App. 1st Dist.) - Affirming preliminary injunction in favor of client-plaintiff against former employee and new employer for breach of restrictive covenants.

  • Dunlap v. Alcuin Montessori School, 298 Ill. App. 3d 329, 698 N.E.2d 574 (1st Dist.), app. denied, 179 Ill. 2d 580, 705 N.E.2d 436 (1998) – In  appeal on behalf of defendant school, reversing jury verdict in plaintiff’s favor for breach of written employment contract and affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s defamation claims.


ERISA & MPPAA

  • Prairie Capital II, L.P. v. The Hollow Metal Pension Fund, (S.D.N.Y.) – Case involving seven-figure withdrawal liability claim arising under Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) as amended by Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA).  After briefing and winning summary judgment respecting the non-arbitrability of client’s claims for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, matter was favorably settled and related arbitration dismissed.

  • Sun Capital Partners III, L.P. v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund, (D. Mass.) – Case involving seven-figure withdrawal liability claim arising under ERISA and MPPAA and asserted against client private investment partnerships relating to failure of portfolio company in which each partnership had an ownership interest and involving novel theories of de facto partnership/joint venture and evade-or-avoid withdrawal liability.  Trial court granted motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the non-arbitrability of client plaintiffs’ claims before defendant filed written response to motion.

  • Chicago Truck Drivers, Helpers & Warehouse Workers Union (Indep.) Pension Fund v. Con-way Inc., (N.D. Ill.) & AAA Case No. 11-621-000724-09 – Case involving seven-figure withdrawal liability claim arising under ERISA and MPAAA and asserted against client relating to failure of former corporate subsidiary several years after it was spun-off by client.  After briefing of client’s motion to dismiss and motion to stay related arbitration, matter was successfully settled and lawsuit and related arbitration dismissed.

  • Stratton v. GKN North Am. Servs., Inc., (E.D. Ky.) – Case involving claims asserted against client (GKN) by putative class of retirees for alleged ERISA and Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) breaches associated with client’s changes to certain retiree medical and life insurance benefits for certain legacy hourly employees.  Matter was successfully settled before class was certified.

  • Northwest Indiana Regional Council of Carpenters Pension Trust Fund v. Nannenga, (N.D. Ind.) – Case involving ERISA fiduciary duty and other claims asserted by client (a multiemployer pension plan) against former trustee, co-conspirators, and seller of real estate investment to client that was provided by means of kick-back paid to former pension fund trustee.  After completing discovery, settling with some defendants, and defeating summary judgment motion brought by seller of investment, remaining claims against seller of investment were successfully settled, along with related Department of Labor lawsuit, ultimately recouping for pension plan from all defendants an amount that in the aggregate exceeded the principal amount of the pension fund’s real estate investment.


Finance & Lending

  • General Citrus International, Inc. v. Remien, No. 04 C 6402, 2009 WL 483855 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 26, 2009) – This lawsuit involved efforts by the client/plaintiff to enforce a guarantee of a subordinated debt.  The guarantor of the subordinated debt argued that his obligation had not matured because, rather than pay-off the senior indebtedness, the guarantor of the senior debt had arranged for his wholly-owned corporation to take an ostensible assignment of the senior indebtedness in exchange for a sum equal to that debt.  On cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court held that the corporate veil between the guarantor of the senior debt and his corporation should be disregarded, that the alleged assignment of the senior indebtedness lacked consideration, and therefore it was invalid.  As such, the sum paid to the senior creditor for the “assignment” constituted a satisfaction of the senior indebtedness, resulting in the ripening of the obligations of the guarantor of the client’s debt.

  • Counsel to a group of affiliated life-insurance financing and brokerage companies in connection with a fraud action against a well-known bank.  The matter involves a $100 million life-insurance premium-finance program and related loan, security, and guaranty agreements.

  • Executor of trust fund in a $30 million action to enforce guaranty and pledge agreements against borrowers who formerly stood as one of the nation’s largest franchisees of family restaurants.  The case required close coordination with bankruptcy and real estate counsel.

  • Representation of aluminum products manufacturer against financier’s claim to stock options and commissions in connection with a $203 million financing facility for an aluminum processing plant purchase.  After winning key battle over a disputed arbitration provision, plaintiff dropped his efforts to proceed with litigation in Los Angeles and case proceeded as declaratory judgment action in Chicago.

  • Representation of lender in a $625 million foreclosure action that gained title to twin office towers in downtown Chicago.  At the time, this was by far the largest foreclosure proceeding in the history of the state of Illinois and one of the largest in the nation.  The case was initiated by successfully obtaining an ex parte temporary restraining order and having a receiver appointed to manage the properties on an interim basis.


Franchise & Distribution

  • Technical Casino Supplies, Ltd. v. ShuffleMaster Inc., (AAA Arbitration) – Case involving claims by distributor relating to client termination of distribution agreement.  After early ruling by arbitrator for client on termination of distribution agreement, case was favorably settled.

  • American Top English, Inc. v. Lexicon Marketing (USA), Inc., 2004 WL 1403695 (N.D. Ill. June 21, 2004); American Top English, Inc. v. Lexicon Marketing (USA), Inc., 2004 WL 2271838 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 4, 2004) – Case involving consumer fraud, distributor termination, franchise, and breach of contract claims asserted against client/defendant.  Court initially granted motion to dismiss as to statutory consumer fraud and franchise claims, and several of plaintiff’s contract and distributor termination claims.  Court’s subsequent rulings with respect to summary judgment motions essentially gutted plaintiff’s claims, ultimately prompting favorable settlement for client.

  • McGuirk Oil Co. v. Amoco Oil Co., 889 F.2d 734 (6th Cir. 1989) – Case involving claims that client franchisor breached alleged fiduciary duties owed plaintiff franchisee.  Appellate court reversed and directed judgment be entered in favor of client, holding no fiduciary duties were created by franchise agreement.


Insurance & Reinsurance

  • Millard Chicago Window Cleaning, LLC v. Mesirow Ins. Services, Inc., No. 05 L 1507 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Cty. May 1, 2009 & May 21, 2010) – The client/policyholder sued its insurance broker for professional malpractice based on erroneous information contained in an insurance application prepared by the broker, which had led to rescission of the policy issued in reliance on that application.  In a series of summary judgment rulings, the Court granted the client’s motions for summary judgment.

  • Indiana Regional Council of Carp. Pension Tr. Fund v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., No. 2:06-CV-32 PS, 2007 WL 683795 (N.D. Ind. March 2, 2007) - This lawsuit involved the client/policyholder’s efforts to recover under an ERISA fidelity bond for losses arising out of a trustee’s malfeasance in investing pension funds in an unsuitable land venture in exchange for kickbacks.  On cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court ruled for the client/policyholder, rejecting the insurer’s reliance on a suit limitations clause in the policy as grounds for denying the claim.

  • Nvidia Corp. v. Federal Ins. Co., No. 04 C 7178, 2005 WL 2230190 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 6, 2005) – This lawsuit was brought by a client/policyholder seeking a declaration that a CGL insurer had a duty to defend claims sounding in tortious interference.  On cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court held that the allegations in underlying complaint included claims of defamation that brought the claim within the scope of the Personal Injury Liability coverage of the policy.

  • U.S. Gypsum v. Admiral, 643 N.E.2d 1226 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 1994), and U.S.F. & G. v. Wilkin Insulation Co., 578 N.E.2d 926 (Ill. 1991) – These are the two leading cases decided under Illinois law establishing insurance coverage for asbestos-related property damage claims.  Ms. Adler represented the policyholder in both cases, including second-chairing a six-month trial in the U.S. Gypsum case.

  • Clark V. Natali Ins. Agency v. Pa. Ins. Dep’t ex rel. Allstate Ins. Co., (Pa. Comw. Ct.) – Case involving statutory challenge to client’s termination of insurance agency for poor performance.  Administrative law judge affirmed dismissal of claims asserted against client, holding Pennsylvania statute restricting termination of certain types of insurance agencies did not apply to termination of independent contractor insurance agency, which ruling was subsequently affirmed by court, prompting subsequent favorable settlement of related lawsuit.

  • Virginia Surety Company v. Employers Reinsurance Corporation (Ad Hoc Arbitration) – Case involving disputes by reinsurer as to client (Virginia Surety) claims for covered loss adjustment expenses and related issues.  Following mediation, case successfully settled on behalf of client, resulting in dismissal of arbitration.


Intellectual Property

  • Stafford Trading Inc. v. Lovely, No. 05 C 4868, 2007 WL 1512417 (N.D. Ill. May 21, 2007) – In this currently pending action, the firm is defending clients against claims of copyright infringement and pursuing counterclaims under the Illinois Trade Secret Act involving a proprietary option pricing system.  In the cited opinion, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to our client’s counterclaims.  The case is scheduled to proceed to trial in June 2011.

  • Bally Technology, Inc. v. International Game Technology (IGT), (D. Nev.) – Case involved patent infringement and antitrust claims against client (IGT) relating to patent pool for cashless gaming technologies.  After arguing motion to dismiss antitrust claims and brief period of discovery, matter was favorably settled for client.

  • Okor v. Atari Games Corp., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7809 (D. Mass. 2002), aff’d, No. 02-1383 (Fed. Cir. 2003) – Case involving claims against client for patent infringement.  Trial court awarded summary judgment to client, and summary judgment ruling was upheld on appeal.

  • Research Corporation Technologies, Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l Inc., (D. Ariz.) – Case involving alleged patent infringement by client (Lexmark) of imaging technology used for computer printers.  After arguing summary judgment motions respecting invalidity and non-infringement, and after presenting arguments at Markman hearing, case was favorably settled for client.

  • RWT Corp. v. Wonderware Corp. 931 F. Supp. 583 (N.D. Ill. 1996) – Denying preliminary injunction against client-defendant accused of trademark infringement.

 


Professional Malpractice

  • Representation of attorney in a legal malpractice action, which includes negligence claims against an investment consulting firm, involving an alleged $7 million in securities options.  Client was awarded summary judgment by the trial court, and the trial court’s ruling was affirmed by the Illinois Appellate Court.

  • TIG Ins. Co. v. Aon Re, Inc., 2005 WL 3742818 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2005), aff’d, 521 F.3d 351 (5th Cir. 2008) – Case involving claims that client (Aon Re Inc.) was negligent and/or committed malpractice in serving as reinsurance broker, breached alleged fiduciary duties owed plaintiff, and was liable for common-law contribution.  Trial court awarded Aon Re summary judgment on all claims, which ruling was then affirmed on appeal.


Product Liability & Environmental

  • Smith v. Chevron Chem. Co., 242 F.3d 376, 2000 WL 1852621 (8th Cir. 2000) – Case involved claim against client defendant for alleged failure to warn and defective gas tapping tee.  Following a jury trial in which plaintiff was awarded less than four percent of his demanded damages, the jury verdict was affirmed, along with judgment in favor of client defendant on its contribution claim against third party.

  • Hu-Friedy Mfg. Co. v. General Electric Co., (N.D. Ill.) – Case involving claims by client manufacturer of dental products against supplier of resin material relating to unsuitability of material for purposes sold.

  • Counsel for large chemical company coordinating defense and strategy in numerous consumer class actions and third-party litigation in federal and state courts throughout the United States, in Canada, and before the Consumer Products Safety Commission in Washington, D.C. arising out of the sale of high temperature plastic vent pipe.

  • Representation of remediation services provider in connection with litigation brought by families of four children claiming to have developed neuroblastoma from exposure to coal tar.

  • Defense of national retailer in large multi-district litigation involving toxic tort and CERCLA claims.

  • Representation of large manufacturing company in connection with CERCLA claims asserted in federal court in Chicago.

  • Stamps v. Collagen Corp., 984 F.2d 1415 (5th Cir.), cert den., 510 U.S. 824 (1993) – Case involving claims against medical device manufacturer for allegedly defective products.  Representing amicus trade association, federal appeals court affirmed ruling of trial court for device manufacturer on grounds of federal preemption.

Securities & Receiver

  • Service as the receiver in Friedhopfer, et al. v. Dachman, et al., No. 10-cv-6162, which is pending before the Honorable Rebecca Pallmeyer in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  This receivership involves the assets of defendants who are subject to claims of serial predatory fraud.  Receiver has the authority to hold and manage all receivership assets, including assets of several individuals and the corporate entity through which the scheme at issue was perpetrated.

  • Representation of officer and shareholder of a closely-held international engineering consortium corporation, as well as the estate of the corporation’s former majority shareholder and chief executive officer, against multi-million dollar claims of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the valuation and purchase of a minority shareholder’s interest in corporation.  RDAP also represented and obtained dismissal of all claims against the corporation.


Sports & Entertainment

  • Lindland v. United States of Am. Wrestling Ass’n, 227 F.3d 1000, 228 F.3d 782, 230 F.3d 1036 (7th Cir. 2000) – Cases involving challenge to arbitration award in favor of client Greco-Roman wrestler, entitling client to compete (successfully) for spot on Olympic team.  In series of expedited appeals after client won right to represent United States at Olympics in Sydney, appellate court ruled for client on three occasions, rejecting challenges by United States Olympic Committee and other organizations, as well as challenge by defeated wrestler. Client ultimately won Silver Medal at Olympics in Sydney.

  • Representation of Olympic short track speed skater Tommy O’Hare in connection with controversy that arose out of 2002 Olympic trials.  Dispute was arbitrated at Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs, and after three days of arbitration proceedings, it was favorably resolved by means of a confidential settlement.

  • Consultation by several clients in connection with controversies attracting international attention arising before and during the Olympics in Salt Lake City.

  • Representation of additional Olympic and world class athletes in disputes arising in connection with the following sports: speedskating, canoe/kayaking, mixed martial arts, and rowing.


Tort

  • Successful defense of international hotel corporation against claims brought by class of limited partner investors for conversion, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy.  All claims against client were dismissed by court.

  • Thermal Management, Inc. v. Coactive Networks, 99 C 5210 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 1, 2000) – Dismissing defamation suit filed against client, an engineering firm hired by federal GAO to troubleshoot problems with Dirksen Federal Building’s HVAC system.  Alleged defamation consisted of critical comments made by client regarding quality of services provided by plaintiff, which had installed the HVAC system.

  • Dubrovin v. Marshall Field’s & Co. Employees’ Credit Union, 180 Ill. App. 3d 992, 536 N.E.2d 800 (1st Dist. 1989) – Affirming dismissal of defamation claims asserted against client/defendant arising from manner in which plaintiff’s employment had been terminated.


Rachlis Duff Adler & Peel LLC * 542 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 900 * Chicago, Illinois  60605 * (312) 733-3950