Source: https://www.hahnlaw.com/professionals/ian-h-fisher
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 22:27:20+00:00

Document:
Ian H. Fisher represents commercial clients ranging from small entrepreneurs to Fortune 100 companies. Ian has successfully litigated cases involving real estate, antitrust, trade secret misappropriation, consumer, and business tort disputes.
Ian has substantial experience with class action and multidistrict litigation proceedings and has successfully defended on appeal several trial court victories. He is skilled at identifying strategies that align with his clients’ business goals. Having served as a general counsel for both a law firm and a small company, Ian has a unique understanding of in-house counsel’s perspective.
Within his established litigation practice, Ian has unique experience counseling corporate clients through biometric privacy issues, specifically relating to the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”). Ian represents and counsels clients on a wide range of issues central to their business needs, including class action defense, TCPA compliance, insurance policies and claims, risk mitigation, and restrictive covenants. Ian chairs the firm’s Biometric Privacy Practice Group, helping clients navigate these complex matters as they arise.
Illinois Super Lawyers has repeatedly named Ian to its ranks, declaring him one of its “Top 100 Attorneys” for multiple years. For more than 15 years, the Leading Lawyers Network has named Ian as a “Leading Lawyer” in both Commercial Litigation and Class Action/Mass Tort Defense, and he has been ranked more recently in Trade Secrets/Unfair Competition Law. He is also rated AV Preeminent® 5/5 by Martindale-Hubbell, its top rating for ethical standards and legal ability.
Defended companies in over three dozen putative class actions under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), the federal anti-junk faxing/texting/robocalling statute, including in Bellissimo v. BBVA Compass Bank 17-cv-6833 (N.D. Ill.), and Dickey v. Leads National Corp, 16-cv-30 (S.D. Tex.), in which the client was voluntarily dismissed; Martin v. Direct Wines, 15-cv-757 (N.D. Ill.), which favorably settled on an individual basis; Glen Ellyn Pharmacy, Inc. v. Sepracor, 10-C-1594 (N.D. Ill.), in which the client settled a large potential liability solely with insurance proceeds; and Jepsen v. Club Texting, 08-cv-5508 (N.D. Ill.), which settled on a class-wide basis for less than the cost of defense.
Represented sophisticated real estate client that is incorporating biometric technology into the security system of a marque building in Chicago. With a wave of the hand, building tenants can gain access to the building without a security badge. Ian counseled this client in designing a BIPA- compliant approach, formulating its BIPA policy, and securing the various participants’ agreements.
Represented the developer of a commercial property when a supermarket project was halted after the discovery of a previously undisclosed easement across the property. Ian persuaded the title insurer to file suit to successfully pressure the dominant landowners to release the easement.
Represented a building owner in litigation concerning a hotel tenant’s cross-easement rights under a long-term lease and the tenant’s obligation to make a nearly ten million dollar contribution to the construction of a parking garage.
Methodist Health Services Corp. v. OSF Healthcare Sys., 13-cv-1054 (C.D. Ill.). Working with co-counsel, won summary judgement for defendant accused by competing hospital network of violating the use of supposedly exclusive contracts with commercial healthcare insurers.
Falkner v. Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., et al. 14-cv-5459 (N.D. Ill.). Secured dismissal with prejudice on behalf of a manufacturer and operator of red light cameras of a putative class action brought by an individual who paid a fine for running a red light. The putative class representative sought over $100 million based on various theories, including the purported unconstitutionality of the enabling statute and the defendant’s alleged use of bribery to secure the red light camera contract.
In re Insurance Antitrust Litigation. MDL No. 1663, Mater Case No. 04-cv-5184 (D. N.J.). Represented six “tag along” plaintiffs, including several Fortune 50 companies, in antitrust suits against large commercial insurance brokers and carriers alleging that they engaged in customer allocation schemes. Helped serve as tag along plaintiffs liaison counsel when cases were combined in a multidistrict litigation proceeding. After years of hard-fought litigation, including fact and expert discovery, all claims settled very favorably for the clients.
Represented restaurant franchisor with ownership of almost 50 locations in various disputes. In one, Ian handled a dispute with the landlord of the client’s flagship store in the South Loop after the build-out ran a year behind schedule and more than $1.5 million over budget due to undisclosed problems with the building. Although both parties threatened litigation, Ian successfully negotiated a three-way settlement that included the general contractor. Ian has also represented the client in several litigations with franchisees and with a departing executive.
Represented six corporations in separate FINRA arbitrations against Bank of America concerning the bank’s sale of auction rate securities backed by student loans before the market for such securities froze. The arbitrations settled at various stages, including after extended evidentiary hearing, each on excellent terms for the corporations.
Represented a large office real estate firm in a dispute with its partner in a commercial office building over their respective ownership rights. Ian successfully convinced the partner of the likely course of litigation and assisted in the successful renegotiation of the partnership terms.
FTC v. Subscriberbase Holdings, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-1527 (N.D. Ill.). Defended internet-based company in suit by FTC alleging violations of the FTC Act and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Successfully negotiated settlement that relieved client and its owners of further liability.
Donovan v. Rede Partners LLP, Case No. 13 L 216 (Lake Co., Ill.). Won dismissal of a lawsuit against a private equity fundraising business and its owners brought by an individual claiming to be a partner in the business.
Goss International Corp. v. Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd. 126 S. Ct. 2363 (2006); 434 F.3d 1081 (8th Cir. 2006); 321 F. Supp. 2d 1039 (N.D. Iowa 2004). Tried the only case ever won by a plaintiff under the Antidumping Act of 1916, which prohibited foreign companies from selling in the U.S. at unfairly low prices. Secured a judgment of $32 million, plus $4.1 million in fees and costs for the client after a three-week jury trial. Successfully protected the judgment through post-trial motions and appeal, including on petition for writ of certiorari to Supreme Court.
DryCo Group Explosion Proof Equipment, LLC v. Renoir Corporation. Case No. 09 CH 52187 (Cook Co., Ill.). Represented large equipment manufacturer in international joint venture and patent licensing dispute. Secured final judgment and executed on it through the auction of large equipment and patent rights.
Defended a church against a suit for specific performance of a land sale contract. After vacating a default judgment entered prior to his retention, Ian positioned the client to leverage settlement, which included the client purchasing the plaintiff’s neighboring parcel on favorable terms.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.