SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 11
Download to read offline
No. _____
______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS,
FIRST DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________
ZEKELMAN INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Z-MODULAR LLC, and Z-MODULAR
CANADA, INC. f/k/a VECTORBLOC
CORP.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
JULIAN BOWRON and VECTORMINIMA,
INC.,
Defendants-Appellants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Rule 307(d) Appeal from the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois, County Department,
Chancery Division, No. 20 CH 06539.
The Honorable Eve M. Reilly,
Judge Presiding.
APPELLANTS’ RULE 307(d)(1) PETITION FOR REVIEW
OF ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 307(d)(1), Defendants-Appellants Julian Bowron
(“Bowron”) and VectorMinima, Inc. (“VectorMinima”) (together, “Defendants”) respectfully
petition this Court to reverse the trial court’s order of November 20, 2020 (the “November 20
Order”) granting the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (the
“TRO Motion”) filed by Plaintiffs Zekelman Industries, Inc. (“Zekelman”), Z-Modular LLC, and
Z-Modular Canada, Inc. f/k/a VectorBloc Corp. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”).
The trial court has issued a TRO on an unenforceable employment agreement and on an
absence of evidence that would prevent the Defendants from participating, in any fashion, within
an entire industry, regardless of whether that conduct is potentially competitive with the
Plaintiffs. It precludes Bowron from using the name of an entirely separate entity that has not
2
only existed since 2011, but that also serves as the current landlord of one of the plaintiffs, has
not been alleged to violate any trademark or trade secret law, and is wholly unrelated to the
Plaintiffs’ claims. The TRO, in short, effectively freezes the ability of the Defendants to earn a
living in any way on the cusp of the holiday season—based on nothing more than conclusory
statements and innuendo unsupported by any well-pleaded facts. The nature of the TRO, and the
unfounded basis for its issuance, calls for this emergency appeal and the urgent attention of this
Court.
In support of this petition, Defendants also submit their accompanying memorandum of
law and Supporting Record, and state as follows:
The Parties and Nature of the Case
1. This case arises from a lawsuit that the Plaintiffs filed seeking emergency relief
over matters they had known about for over eight (8) months. (C 265; C 311, Ex. C)
2. Bowron is a Canadian citizen and resident who founded a company called Vector
Praxis in 2011. (C 281) Bowron has operated Vector Praxis continuously since that time. In
2014, Bowron started VectorBloc, which was purchased by Atlas Tube Canada (a subsidiary of
Zekelman) in two phases, with the final phase occurring in May 2017. (C 266, C 281)
3. In May 2017, Bowron entered into an employment agreement (the “Agreement”)
with Zekelman. (C 288) The Agreement included a non-competition covenant that Bowron
would not compete with Zekelman in a “Covered Business” as follows:
The Executive shall not, at any time during the Term or during the
twenty four (24) month period following the later of the expiration
of the Term or the Date of Termination: (i) directly or indirectly
engage in, have any equity interest in, or manage or operate any
person, firm, corporation, partnership or business (whether as
director, officer, employee, agent, representative, partner, security
holder, consultant or otherwise) engaged in any Covered Business
or (ii) otherwise participate in any Covered Business.
3
(C 266, C 295 §7(a))
4. The Agreement defines “Covered Business” as follows:
“Covered Business” shall mean any business, other than the
Company or its subsidiaries, directly engaged in, or with
significant shareholding in operations that are engaged in, the
manufacture of welded or seamless steel tubular or pipe products
with substantial manufacturing operations in North America or
steel framed modular systems, steel framed modular fabrication or
steel framed modular construction.
(C 289 §1(k))
5. The Agreement also included a non-solicitation provision with a 12-month
duration as follows:
The Executive shall not, and shall not permit any of his affiliates
to, at any time during the Term or during the twelve month period
following the later of the expiration of the Term or the Date of
Termination, directly or indirectly, recruit or otherwise solicit or
induce any employee, customer, subscriber or supplier of the
Company to terminate its employment or arrangement with the
Company, otherwise change its relationship with the Company, or
establish any relationship with the Executive or any of his affiliates
for any business purpose reasonably deemed competitive with the
business of the Company. The parties hereto agree that Executive
will not violate this Section 7(b) by engaging, directly or
indirectly, on his own behalf or on behalf of any other person, (A)
in any general help wanted or similar advertising or (B) any
recruiting or placement agency or similar firm to recruit any
employee, representative or consultant in a manner that is not
targeted at any employee of the Company.
(C 295 §7(b))
6. For purposes of the non-solicitation provision, “the term ‘Company’ shall include
the Company, its parent, related entities, and any of its direct or indirect subsidiaries.” (C 295
§7(d))
4
7. For both the non-competition and non-competition covenants, the term “Term” is
defined as follows:
Term of Employment. The term of employment under this
Agreement (the “Term”) shall be for the period beginning on the
Effective Date and ending on the fifth anniversary thereof (the
“End Date”).
(C 291 §2(b))
8. As used in the Agreement, the term “Term” refers just to Bowron’s actual period
of employment with Zekelman:
a. “During the Term, the Executive: (A) shall serve as he [sic] Vice
President, Design and Engineering of the Z-Modular division of the Company . . . .” (C
291 §2(c));
b. “During the Term, the Executive shall receive a base salary at a rate . . . .”)
(C 291 §3(a));
c. “During the Term, the Executive shall be entitled to paid vacation in
accordance with the Company’s vacation policies applicable to executives of the
Company.” (C 291 §3(d)); and
d. Describing the Company’s obligation to provide tail insurance for Bowron
for the period of “during the Term and for the five (5) year period thereafter.” (C 292
§3(f)).
9. At all times during and after his employment with Zekelman, Bowron continued
to own and operate Vector Praxis with Zekelman’s knowledge and consent, with Vector Praxis
serving as Z-Modular’s landlord and receiving rent from Z-Modular. (C 281, C 304 (Ex. B))
Vector Praxis continues to receive rent from Z-Modular. (Id.)
5
10. In the fall of 2017, Bowron began suffering a series of personal hardships,
including the failing health, and subsequent passing, of both of his parents, and a divorce with
his then-spouse. (C 266-267, C 282 ¶¶ 3-6) As a result of needing to act as caretaker for his ill
parents and unable to simultaneously handle his family matters while working the 60 hours per
week that would have been required for his job, on December 21, 2017, Bowron wrote Mickey
McNamara, Zekelman’s Executive Vice President and Z-Modular’s President, and requested to
switch to a part-time consultant position effective January 31, 2018. (Id.)
11. Although Zekelman initially responded to Bowron’s request by saying they could
“work things out,” it subsequently stopped communicating with Bowron about his request. (C
282-283, ¶¶ 7-8) On January 31, 2018, Bowron learned that Zekelman had terminated his
employment when a colleague sent him a copy of an internal announcement stating he was no
longer with the company. (C282-283, ¶ 8) Bowron had never resigned and considered himself to
have been fired. (Id.)
12. Bowron spent 2018 and most of 2019 handling personal matters, including the
death of his mother, the completion of his divorce, and starting a new household. (C 267, C 283,
¶ 9) In 2019, Bowron began developing Metaloq and, in December 2019, founded
VectorMinima. (C 267, C 283 ¶ 10)
13. VectorMinima is not a manufacturer. Rather, it operates solely as a research and
development company. (C 284 ¶ 12)
14. The Metaloq system developed by Bowron does not rely on any proprietary
technology or information. Rather, it is a novel combination of basic, commonly held processes
from structural engineering, drilling, welding, and other practices. (C 283-284 ¶ 11)
6
15. In February 2020, Bowron informed Plaintiffs that he had founded
VectorMinima, that it was an R&D company, and that he had developed Metaloq. (C 267-268, C
284 ¶ 13) He even sent Plaintiffs a PowerPoint presentation on Metaloq and VectorMinima. (Id.)
In response, Plaintiffs sent Bowron a cease and desist latter accusing Bowron of trademark
infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, and breaching the Agreement’s restrictive
covenants. (C 311 (Ex. C)) Bowron’s attorney responded to the cease and desist letter, and
neither Bowron nor VectorMinima heard anything more from Plaintiffs until the filing of the
present lawsuit. (C 317 (Ex. D))
16. In March 2020, Bowron attended the 2020 World of Modular convention and
tradeshow in Orlando, Florida. (C 285 ¶ 15) The convention is an annual show hosted by the
Modular Building Institute, a trade organization. Any member of the public can attend the
convention. (Id.) The convention provides a list of all convention attendees to each person
attending the event. (Id.) Bowron received such a list of industry attendees when he attended the
2020 convention. (Id.)
17. In October 2020, Defendants advertised a public demonstration of the Metaloq
system to be held from October 28th until November 3rd. To advertise the demonstration,
VectorMinima put information on its publicly available website. In addition, Bowron posted an
announcement about the demonstration through his LinkedIn page. (C 269, C 285 ¶ 14)
18. Late afternoon on Friday, October 30, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the underlying
lawsuit, seeking emergency relief. (C 115, C 261)
The TRO Motion
19. On Friday, October 30, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an action against Defendants in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, Zekelman Industries, Inc., et al. v. Bowron, et
7
al., No. 20 CH 06539. (C 5) Along with a Verified Complaint, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (the “TRO Motion”). (C 115, C 118)
The TRO Motion was noticed for hearing three days later, on Monday, November 2, 2020. (C
261)
20. In the TRO Motion, Plaintiffs alleged that Bowron was in violation of the non-
competition and non-solicitation covenants of his Agreement, that Defendants had
misappropriated Plaintiffs’ trade secrets, and that Defendants were infringing on Plaintiffs’
“Vector” trademark. (C 115)
21. In response, Defendants showed that Plaintiffs failed to adequately allege any
imminent and irreparable harm. (C 268-269) In particular, Defendants showed that Plaintiffs
failed to adequately explain their failure of waiting eight months to file a motion seeking
emergency relief in October 2020 based on factual allegations they had known about since
February 2020. (Id.) Further, the putative basis of the emergency motion, which was the
demonstration Defendants held from October 28 – November 3, 2020, was already over. (Id.)
Additionally, at no point in their TRO Motion or other supporting materials did Plaintiffs show
that they had lost any actual customers or were in imminent danger of losing any actual
customers. (Id.)
22. Defendants also showed that Plaintiffs had not demonstrated any likelihood of
success on the merits of their claims. (C 269-278) With respect to their misappropriation claim,
Plaintiffs never identified what alleged trade secrets were misappropriated or when, and they
failed to include any well-pleaded facts alleging that Defendants used any allegedly
misappropriated trade secrets. (C 269-271) Instead, Plaintiffs relied upon broad, conclusory
statements lacking any meaningful fact or detail that are insufficient to support the extraordinary
8
remedy of granting injunctive relief. (Id.) Plaintiffs also failed to adequately demonstrate how it
Bowron would inevitably disclose any of their alleged trade secrets. (Id.)
23. Defendants also showed that Bowron was not in violation of the non-competition
covenant of his Agreement. (C 271-273) As an initial matter, as interpreted by Plaintiffs, the
Agreement is so vague and ambiguous that it is unenforceable, as Bowron would not be able to
determine how long the restrictions remain in effect or whether his actions violate the
Agreement. (C 272-273) The non-competition covenant runs for the two-year period following
the “later of the expiration of the Term or the Date of Termination.” (Id., C 295 §7(a)) However,
as used elsewhere in context of the Agreement, “Term” is used unambiguously with reference to
the actual duration of Bowron’s employment, which all parties do not dispute ended on
January 31, 2018. (C 272) Plaintiffs argue that “Term” also means a static, five-year term ending
in May 2022. (C 333) But Plaintiffs’ reading would render the Agreement internally conflicted
and unenforceable. Moreover, the narrow definition of “Covered Business” in the non-
competition provision only applies to direct manufacturing. Plaintiffs, for the first time in their
reply materials in the trial court, argued that it was also a violation of the non-competition
covenant to be “greatly interested in” the modular industry (C 331-332), which would expand the
non-competition covenant beyond any legitimate protectable business interest and prohibit
Bowron from teaching to blogging to meeting and to planning. The only reasonable
interpretation of the non-competition covenant is that it expired on January 31, 2020, and thus
any alleged actions after that date cannot form the basis of a breach of contract. (C 273)
24. With respect to the non-solicitation covenant, Defendants showed that Plaintiffs
were not likely to succeed on the merits of their claim because the non-solicitation covenant’s
duration was as vague and ambiguous as duration of the non-competition covenant, as they used
9
identical language. (C 273-275) Further, Defendants showed that the non-solicitation covenant
was overbroad, vague, and unenforceable for two additional reasons. First, it applies not only to
customers and employees of Bowron’s former employer (Zekelman), but also to Zekelman’s
“parents, related entities, and any of its direct or indirect subsidiaries.” (Id.) Second, it covers
customers and employees of these numerous, unrelated entities irrespective of whether Bowron
actually had any personal contact with them, or even whether they were customers or employees
of Zekelman during Bowron’s employment. (Id.) Additionally, the prohibitions in the non-
solicitation covenant prohibit Bowron and his “affiliates” from entering into any “business
relationship reasonably deemed competitive” with the business of Zekelman or its parents,
related entities, or direct and indirect subsidiaries. (Id.) However, Bowron has no way of
knowing who his “affiliates” are or which “business relationship” he or his “affiliates” enter into
may be “reasonably deemed competitive” with one of the many covered entities, or who would
deem it to be so. (Id.)
25. With respect to the trademark infringement claim, Defendants showed that
Plaintiffs did not demonstrate any likelihood of confusion between the two names used:
VectorBloc and VectorMinima. (C 275 – 278) Defendants showed that the two names were not
similar in appearance or suggestion; that the degree of care to be exercised by consumers is high;
that the Plaintiffs’ mark is weak as it entered a crowded field of other trademark owners using
the word “vector”; that Plaintiffs provided no evidence of actual confusion among the relevant
consuming public, other than a self-serving affidavit from the Plaintiffs themselves; and that
Defendants had no intent to palm off their product as that of the Plaintiffs. (Id.)
10
26. Finally, Defendants demonstrated that the balance of harms weighed heavily in
their favor, as the entry of a TRO would be severely detrimental to Bowron and his family. (C
278-279)
27. Plaintiffs filed their reply materials in support of the TRO Motion on November
10, 2020 (C 328), and the Court held a hearing via Zoom on the TRO Motion on November 16,
2020. (R 1) At the hearing, Plaintiffs stated that for purposes of the hearing, they were only
seeking a TRO and not a preliminary injunction. (R 16:6-24)
28. On November 20, 2020, the Court issued the November 20 Order, finding that
Plaintiffs had shown a “fair question” on the elements of their claims. (C 379)
29. Defendants timely filed a notice of interlocutory appeal pursuant to Supreme
Court Rule 307(d) on November 23, 2020. (C 390-392)
Need for Relief
30. Defendants respectfully submit that the trial court erred in granting the TRO
Motion. Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate, on the manifest weight of the evidence provided, that
they satisfied any of the elements needed to obtain a temporary restraining order. Accordingly,
Defendants respectfully submit that the November 20 Order should be reversed.
31. In support of this Petition, Defendants refer the Court to their accompanying
memorandum of law and the Supporting Record.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Court reverse the trial court’s
November 20 Order and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with the decision
and directions of the Appellate Court, and for such other and further relief as the Appellate Court
may deem proper.
11
Dated: November 23, 2020.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ James L. Wideikis
James L. Wideikis (#6278707)
Matthew J. Feery (#6296353)
Much Shelist, P.C.
191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1800
Chicago, IL 60606
Firm I.D. No. 48345
Telephone: 312-521-2000
Facsimile: 312-521-2100
jwideikis@muchlaw.com
mfeery@muchlaw.com
Counsel for Defendants Julian Bowron and
VectorMinima, Inc.

More Related Content

Similar to Rule307dpetition 201124135418

Utahcondolaw -- Construction Defects in Utah
Utahcondolaw -- Construction Defects in UtahUtahcondolaw -- Construction Defects in Utah
Utahcondolaw -- Construction Defects in Utahlwhobbs
 
Cbb512 examination november_2011
Cbb512 examination november_2011Cbb512 examination november_2011
Cbb512 examination november_2011Maatla Moadi
 
Security for Performance
Security for PerformanceSecurity for Performance
Security for PerformanceLaina Chan
 
How To Protect Your Construction Business and Legal Interests
How To Protect Your Construction Business and Legal InterestsHow To Protect Your Construction Business and Legal Interests
How To Protect Your Construction Business and Legal InterestsPalecek & Palecek, PLLC
 
Labour Law_ Notes_ Part Two 7.3.2022.docx
Labour Law_ Notes_ Part Two 7.3.2022.docxLabour Law_ Notes_ Part Two 7.3.2022.docx
Labour Law_ Notes_ Part Two 7.3.2022.docxkuaiwuoi
 
164 clearchanne
164  clearchanne164  clearchanne
164 clearchannefinance31
 
Industrial disputes act
Industrial disputes actIndustrial disputes act
Industrial disputes actBhuvneshpandey
 
Memorandum of Adjudicator-final1
Memorandum of Adjudicator-final1Memorandum of Adjudicator-final1
Memorandum of Adjudicator-final1Adnan Alam
 
A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO THE FAR MANDATORY DISCLOSURE RULE FAR 52.203-13
A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO THE FAR MANDATORY DISCLOSURE RULE FAR 52.203-13A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO THE FAR MANDATORY DISCLOSURE RULE FAR 52.203-13
A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO THE FAR MANDATORY DISCLOSURE RULE FAR 52.203-13dbolton007
 
Buru Energy Contract no 07.2013_5085
Buru Energy Contract no 07.2013_5085Buru Energy Contract no 07.2013_5085
Buru Energy Contract no 07.2013_5085gerard mckay
 
M32089 Construction Contracts And Dispute Resolution.docx
M32089 Construction Contracts And Dispute Resolution.docxM32089 Construction Contracts And Dispute Resolution.docx
M32089 Construction Contracts And Dispute Resolution.docxstirlingvwriters
 
Construction Law Final Report
Construction Law Final ReportConstruction Law Final Report
Construction Law Final ReportArissa Loh
 
Vendor_Security_Application_Package
Vendor_Security_Application_PackageVendor_Security_Application_Package
Vendor_Security_Application_PackageDannielle Holwell
 
Walker v Co-Operative Insurance Society
Walker v Co-Operative Insurance SocietyWalker v Co-Operative Insurance Society
Walker v Co-Operative Insurance SocietyJoe Sykes
 
AGREEMENT OF CHAMBER, CHUTE, ETC FOR DEBARKER AND BARK COLLECTING CONVEYOR F...
AGREEMENT OF CHAMBER, CHUTE, ETC FOR DEBARKER  AND BARK COLLECTING CONVEYOR F...AGREEMENT OF CHAMBER, CHUTE, ETC FOR DEBARKER  AND BARK COLLECTING CONVEYOR F...
AGREEMENT OF CHAMBER, CHUTE, ETC FOR DEBARKER AND BARK COLLECTING CONVEYOR F...GLC
 
Wm. Scott & Co. Case.pdf
Wm. Scott & Co. Case.pdfWm. Scott & Co. Case.pdf
Wm. Scott & Co. Case.pdfVenusSachdeva2
 
P4 P5 Contractual Terms In A Standard Form Contract 2014
P4 P5 Contractual Terms In A Standard Form Contract 2014P4 P5 Contractual Terms In A Standard Form Contract 2014
P4 P5 Contractual Terms In A Standard Form Contract 2014Amber Carter
 
Don't drop the ball on Contract Requirements and Performance (for Public Insu...
Don't drop the ball on Contract Requirements and Performance (for Public Insu...Don't drop the ball on Contract Requirements and Performance (for Public Insu...
Don't drop the ball on Contract Requirements and Performance (for Public Insu...John Bales Attorneys
 

Similar to Rule307dpetition 201124135418 (20)

Utahcondolaw -- Construction Defects in Utah
Utahcondolaw -- Construction Defects in UtahUtahcondolaw -- Construction Defects in Utah
Utahcondolaw -- Construction Defects in Utah
 
Cbb512 examination november_2011
Cbb512 examination november_2011Cbb512 examination november_2011
Cbb512 examination november_2011
 
Security for Performance
Security for PerformanceSecurity for Performance
Security for Performance
 
How To Protect Your Construction Business and Legal Interests
How To Protect Your Construction Business and Legal InterestsHow To Protect Your Construction Business and Legal Interests
How To Protect Your Construction Business and Legal Interests
 
May June 2018 newsletter
May June 2018 newsletterMay June 2018 newsletter
May June 2018 newsletter
 
Labour Law_ Notes_ Part Two 7.3.2022.docx
Labour Law_ Notes_ Part Two 7.3.2022.docxLabour Law_ Notes_ Part Two 7.3.2022.docx
Labour Law_ Notes_ Part Two 7.3.2022.docx
 
164 clearchanne
164  clearchanne164  clearchanne
164 clearchanne
 
Industrial disputes act
Industrial disputes actIndustrial disputes act
Industrial disputes act
 
Memorandum of Adjudicator-final1
Memorandum of Adjudicator-final1Memorandum of Adjudicator-final1
Memorandum of Adjudicator-final1
 
Who Should Pay Final Version
Who Should Pay Final VersionWho Should Pay Final Version
Who Should Pay Final Version
 
A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO THE FAR MANDATORY DISCLOSURE RULE FAR 52.203-13
A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO THE FAR MANDATORY DISCLOSURE RULE FAR 52.203-13A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO THE FAR MANDATORY DISCLOSURE RULE FAR 52.203-13
A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO THE FAR MANDATORY DISCLOSURE RULE FAR 52.203-13
 
Buru Energy Contract no 07.2013_5085
Buru Energy Contract no 07.2013_5085Buru Energy Contract no 07.2013_5085
Buru Energy Contract no 07.2013_5085
 
M32089 Construction Contracts And Dispute Resolution.docx
M32089 Construction Contracts And Dispute Resolution.docxM32089 Construction Contracts And Dispute Resolution.docx
M32089 Construction Contracts And Dispute Resolution.docx
 
Construction Law Final Report
Construction Law Final ReportConstruction Law Final Report
Construction Law Final Report
 
Vendor_Security_Application_Package
Vendor_Security_Application_PackageVendor_Security_Application_Package
Vendor_Security_Application_Package
 
Walker v Co-Operative Insurance Society
Walker v Co-Operative Insurance SocietyWalker v Co-Operative Insurance Society
Walker v Co-Operative Insurance Society
 
AGREEMENT OF CHAMBER, CHUTE, ETC FOR DEBARKER AND BARK COLLECTING CONVEYOR F...
AGREEMENT OF CHAMBER, CHUTE, ETC FOR DEBARKER  AND BARK COLLECTING CONVEYOR F...AGREEMENT OF CHAMBER, CHUTE, ETC FOR DEBARKER  AND BARK COLLECTING CONVEYOR F...
AGREEMENT OF CHAMBER, CHUTE, ETC FOR DEBARKER AND BARK COLLECTING CONVEYOR F...
 
Wm. Scott & Co. Case.pdf
Wm. Scott & Co. Case.pdfWm. Scott & Co. Case.pdf
Wm. Scott & Co. Case.pdf
 
P4 P5 Contractual Terms In A Standard Form Contract 2014
P4 P5 Contractual Terms In A Standard Form Contract 2014P4 P5 Contractual Terms In A Standard Form Contract 2014
P4 P5 Contractual Terms In A Standard Form Contract 2014
 
Don't drop the ball on Contract Requirements and Performance (for Public Insu...
Don't drop the ball on Contract Requirements and Performance (for Public Insu...Don't drop the ball on Contract Requirements and Performance (for Public Insu...
Don't drop the ball on Contract Requirements and Performance (for Public Insu...
 

More from Blair Davies, P.Eng., M.B.A.

Website presentation from Vector Minima Inc and World of Modular full
Website presentation from Vector Minima Inc and World of Modular fullWebsite presentation from Vector Minima Inc and World of Modular full
Website presentation from Vector Minima Inc and World of Modular fullBlair Davies, P.Eng., M.B.A.
 
Fsi picco engineering stone and structural solutions v1
Fsi picco engineering stone and structural solutions v1Fsi picco engineering stone and structural solutions v1
Fsi picco engineering stone and structural solutions v1Blair Davies, P.Eng., M.B.A.
 

More from Blair Davies, P.Eng., M.B.A. (20)

Spec u kon fsi 2021
Spec u kon fsi 2021Spec u kon fsi 2021
Spec u kon fsi 2021
 
Corium q&a 2020
Corium q&a 2020Corium q&a 2020
Corium q&a 2020
 
Dekton fsi facades
Dekton fsi facadesDekton fsi facades
Dekton fsi facades
 
Tro order
Tro orderTro order
Tro order
 
U-Kon Systems FR ENG Catalog
U-Kon Systems FR ENG CatalogU-Kon Systems FR ENG Catalog
U-Kon Systems FR ENG Catalog
 
Ceraclad product brochure ver14-dl...
Ceraclad product brochure ver14-dl...Ceraclad product brochure ver14-dl...
Ceraclad product brochure ver14-dl...
 
Ceraclad product catalog
Ceraclad product catalogCeraclad product catalog
Ceraclad product catalog
 
Facade Systems Inc Lunch and Learn Fundermax
Facade Systems Inc Lunch and Learn FundermaxFacade Systems Inc Lunch and Learn Fundermax
Facade Systems Inc Lunch and Learn Fundermax
 
Website presentation from Vector Minima Inc and World of Modular full
Website presentation from Vector Minima Inc and World of Modular fullWebsite presentation from Vector Minima Inc and World of Modular full
Website presentation from Vector Minima Inc and World of Modular full
 
Fsi module 2 v2 reorganized corium
Fsi module 2 v2 reorganized coriumFsi module 2 v2 reorganized corium
Fsi module 2 v2 reorganized corium
 
Ceraclad brochure ver.13
Ceraclad brochure ver.13Ceraclad brochure ver.13
Ceraclad brochure ver.13
 
FunderMax for people who create Jan 2020
FunderMax for people who create Jan 2020FunderMax for people who create Jan 2020
FunderMax for people who create Jan 2020
 
A different way - career design for youth
A different way - career design for youthA different way - career design for youth
A different way - career design for youth
 
Sunshades and screens from many products 1
Sunshades and screens from many products 1Sunshades and screens from many products 1
Sunshades and screens from many products 1
 
Fsi handout v1 2019
Fsi handout v1 2019Fsi handout v1 2019
Fsi handout v1 2019
 
Terra Cotta Baguettes from Facade Systems Inc
Terra Cotta Baguettes from Facade Systems IncTerra Cotta Baguettes from Facade Systems Inc
Terra Cotta Baguettes from Facade Systems Inc
 
FunderMax sunshades and screens 1
FunderMax sunshades and screens 1FunderMax sunshades and screens 1
FunderMax sunshades and screens 1
 
Fsi picco engineering stone and structural solutions v1
Fsi picco engineering stone and structural solutions v1Fsi picco engineering stone and structural solutions v1
Fsi picco engineering stone and structural solutions v1
 
Fsi FunderMax Compact vs precast 1
Fsi FunderMax Compact vs precast 1Fsi FunderMax Compact vs precast 1
Fsi FunderMax Compact vs precast 1
 
Fsi argeton brochure_v1
Fsi argeton brochure_v1Fsi argeton brochure_v1
Fsi argeton brochure_v1
 

Recently uploaded

Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...Dr. Oliver Massmann
 
xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.
xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.
xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.mike689707
 
An introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha Pandit
An introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha PanditAn introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha Pandit
An introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha PanditSHRADDHA PANDIT
 
Understanding Cryptocurrency Regulation in India: 2024
Understanding Cryptocurrency Regulation in India: 2024Understanding Cryptocurrency Regulation in India: 2024
Understanding Cryptocurrency Regulation in India: 2024Finlaw Consultancy Pvt Ltd
 
Patents and AI: Current Tools, Future Solutions
Patents and AI: Current Tools, Future SolutionsPatents and AI: Current Tools, Future Solutions
Patents and AI: Current Tools, Future SolutionsAurora Consulting
 
state responsibility IN INTERNATIOAL LAW.pptx
state responsibility IN INTERNATIOAL LAW.pptxstate responsibility IN INTERNATIOAL LAW.pptx
state responsibility IN INTERNATIOAL LAW.pptxadvpraballb
 
Classification of Contracts in Business Regulations
Classification of Contracts in Business RegulationsClassification of Contracts in Business Regulations
Classification of Contracts in Business RegulationsSyedaAyeshaTabassum1
 
The Dharmasastra and Modern Law in India.pptx
The Dharmasastra and Modern Law in India.pptxThe Dharmasastra and Modern Law in India.pptx
The Dharmasastra and Modern Law in India.pptxsunilsondhi5
 
The Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a Template
The Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a TemplateThe Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a Template
The Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a TemplateBTL Law P.C.
 
Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...
Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...
Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...SHRADDHA PANDIT
 

Recently uploaded (12)

Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...
 
xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.
xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.
xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.
 
An introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha Pandit
An introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha PanditAn introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha Pandit
An introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha Pandit
 
Understanding Cryptocurrency Regulation in India: 2024
Understanding Cryptocurrency Regulation in India: 2024Understanding Cryptocurrency Regulation in India: 2024
Understanding Cryptocurrency Regulation in India: 2024
 
Patents and AI: Current Tools, Future Solutions
Patents and AI: Current Tools, Future SolutionsPatents and AI: Current Tools, Future Solutions
Patents and AI: Current Tools, Future Solutions
 
Criminalizing Disabilities & False Confessions
Criminalizing Disabilities & False ConfessionsCriminalizing Disabilities & False Confessions
Criminalizing Disabilities & False Confessions
 
state responsibility IN INTERNATIOAL LAW.pptx
state responsibility IN INTERNATIOAL LAW.pptxstate responsibility IN INTERNATIOAL LAW.pptx
state responsibility IN INTERNATIOAL LAW.pptx
 
Biography, Headshot and Vita Fee Document
Biography, Headshot and Vita Fee DocumentBiography, Headshot and Vita Fee Document
Biography, Headshot and Vita Fee Document
 
Classification of Contracts in Business Regulations
Classification of Contracts in Business RegulationsClassification of Contracts in Business Regulations
Classification of Contracts in Business Regulations
 
The Dharmasastra and Modern Law in India.pptx
The Dharmasastra and Modern Law in India.pptxThe Dharmasastra and Modern Law in India.pptx
The Dharmasastra and Modern Law in India.pptx
 
The Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a Template
The Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a TemplateThe Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a Template
The Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a Template
 
Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...
Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...
Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...
 

Rule307dpetition 201124135418

  • 1. No. _____ ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ ZEKELMAN INDUSTRIES, INC., Z-MODULAR LLC, and Z-MODULAR CANADA, INC. f/k/a VECTORBLOC CORP., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. JULIAN BOWRON and VECTORMINIMA, INC., Defendants-Appellants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Rule 307(d) Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division, No. 20 CH 06539. The Honorable Eve M. Reilly, Judge Presiding. APPELLANTS’ RULE 307(d)(1) PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 307(d)(1), Defendants-Appellants Julian Bowron (“Bowron”) and VectorMinima, Inc. (“VectorMinima”) (together, “Defendants”) respectfully petition this Court to reverse the trial court’s order of November 20, 2020 (the “November 20 Order”) granting the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (the “TRO Motion”) filed by Plaintiffs Zekelman Industries, Inc. (“Zekelman”), Z-Modular LLC, and Z-Modular Canada, Inc. f/k/a VectorBloc Corp. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). The trial court has issued a TRO on an unenforceable employment agreement and on an absence of evidence that would prevent the Defendants from participating, in any fashion, within an entire industry, regardless of whether that conduct is potentially competitive with the Plaintiffs. It precludes Bowron from using the name of an entirely separate entity that has not
  • 2. 2 only existed since 2011, but that also serves as the current landlord of one of the plaintiffs, has not been alleged to violate any trademark or trade secret law, and is wholly unrelated to the Plaintiffs’ claims. The TRO, in short, effectively freezes the ability of the Defendants to earn a living in any way on the cusp of the holiday season—based on nothing more than conclusory statements and innuendo unsupported by any well-pleaded facts. The nature of the TRO, and the unfounded basis for its issuance, calls for this emergency appeal and the urgent attention of this Court. In support of this petition, Defendants also submit their accompanying memorandum of law and Supporting Record, and state as follows: The Parties and Nature of the Case 1. This case arises from a lawsuit that the Plaintiffs filed seeking emergency relief over matters they had known about for over eight (8) months. (C 265; C 311, Ex. C) 2. Bowron is a Canadian citizen and resident who founded a company called Vector Praxis in 2011. (C 281) Bowron has operated Vector Praxis continuously since that time. In 2014, Bowron started VectorBloc, which was purchased by Atlas Tube Canada (a subsidiary of Zekelman) in two phases, with the final phase occurring in May 2017. (C 266, C 281) 3. In May 2017, Bowron entered into an employment agreement (the “Agreement”) with Zekelman. (C 288) The Agreement included a non-competition covenant that Bowron would not compete with Zekelman in a “Covered Business” as follows: The Executive shall not, at any time during the Term or during the twenty four (24) month period following the later of the expiration of the Term or the Date of Termination: (i) directly or indirectly engage in, have any equity interest in, or manage or operate any person, firm, corporation, partnership or business (whether as director, officer, employee, agent, representative, partner, security holder, consultant or otherwise) engaged in any Covered Business or (ii) otherwise participate in any Covered Business.
  • 3. 3 (C 266, C 295 §7(a)) 4. The Agreement defines “Covered Business” as follows: “Covered Business” shall mean any business, other than the Company or its subsidiaries, directly engaged in, or with significant shareholding in operations that are engaged in, the manufacture of welded or seamless steel tubular or pipe products with substantial manufacturing operations in North America or steel framed modular systems, steel framed modular fabrication or steel framed modular construction. (C 289 §1(k)) 5. The Agreement also included a non-solicitation provision with a 12-month duration as follows: The Executive shall not, and shall not permit any of his affiliates to, at any time during the Term or during the twelve month period following the later of the expiration of the Term or the Date of Termination, directly or indirectly, recruit or otherwise solicit or induce any employee, customer, subscriber or supplier of the Company to terminate its employment or arrangement with the Company, otherwise change its relationship with the Company, or establish any relationship with the Executive or any of his affiliates for any business purpose reasonably deemed competitive with the business of the Company. The parties hereto agree that Executive will not violate this Section 7(b) by engaging, directly or indirectly, on his own behalf or on behalf of any other person, (A) in any general help wanted or similar advertising or (B) any recruiting or placement agency or similar firm to recruit any employee, representative or consultant in a manner that is not targeted at any employee of the Company. (C 295 §7(b)) 6. For purposes of the non-solicitation provision, “the term ‘Company’ shall include the Company, its parent, related entities, and any of its direct or indirect subsidiaries.” (C 295 §7(d))
  • 4. 4 7. For both the non-competition and non-competition covenants, the term “Term” is defined as follows: Term of Employment. The term of employment under this Agreement (the “Term”) shall be for the period beginning on the Effective Date and ending on the fifth anniversary thereof (the “End Date”). (C 291 §2(b)) 8. As used in the Agreement, the term “Term” refers just to Bowron’s actual period of employment with Zekelman: a. “During the Term, the Executive: (A) shall serve as he [sic] Vice President, Design and Engineering of the Z-Modular division of the Company . . . .” (C 291 §2(c)); b. “During the Term, the Executive shall receive a base salary at a rate . . . .”) (C 291 §3(a)); c. “During the Term, the Executive shall be entitled to paid vacation in accordance with the Company’s vacation policies applicable to executives of the Company.” (C 291 §3(d)); and d. Describing the Company’s obligation to provide tail insurance for Bowron for the period of “during the Term and for the five (5) year period thereafter.” (C 292 §3(f)). 9. At all times during and after his employment with Zekelman, Bowron continued to own and operate Vector Praxis with Zekelman’s knowledge and consent, with Vector Praxis serving as Z-Modular’s landlord and receiving rent from Z-Modular. (C 281, C 304 (Ex. B)) Vector Praxis continues to receive rent from Z-Modular. (Id.)
  • 5. 5 10. In the fall of 2017, Bowron began suffering a series of personal hardships, including the failing health, and subsequent passing, of both of his parents, and a divorce with his then-spouse. (C 266-267, C 282 ¶¶ 3-6) As a result of needing to act as caretaker for his ill parents and unable to simultaneously handle his family matters while working the 60 hours per week that would have been required for his job, on December 21, 2017, Bowron wrote Mickey McNamara, Zekelman’s Executive Vice President and Z-Modular’s President, and requested to switch to a part-time consultant position effective January 31, 2018. (Id.) 11. Although Zekelman initially responded to Bowron’s request by saying they could “work things out,” it subsequently stopped communicating with Bowron about his request. (C 282-283, ¶¶ 7-8) On January 31, 2018, Bowron learned that Zekelman had terminated his employment when a colleague sent him a copy of an internal announcement stating he was no longer with the company. (C282-283, ¶ 8) Bowron had never resigned and considered himself to have been fired. (Id.) 12. Bowron spent 2018 and most of 2019 handling personal matters, including the death of his mother, the completion of his divorce, and starting a new household. (C 267, C 283, ¶ 9) In 2019, Bowron began developing Metaloq and, in December 2019, founded VectorMinima. (C 267, C 283 ¶ 10) 13. VectorMinima is not a manufacturer. Rather, it operates solely as a research and development company. (C 284 ¶ 12) 14. The Metaloq system developed by Bowron does not rely on any proprietary technology or information. Rather, it is a novel combination of basic, commonly held processes from structural engineering, drilling, welding, and other practices. (C 283-284 ¶ 11)
  • 6. 6 15. In February 2020, Bowron informed Plaintiffs that he had founded VectorMinima, that it was an R&D company, and that he had developed Metaloq. (C 267-268, C 284 ¶ 13) He even sent Plaintiffs a PowerPoint presentation on Metaloq and VectorMinima. (Id.) In response, Plaintiffs sent Bowron a cease and desist latter accusing Bowron of trademark infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, and breaching the Agreement’s restrictive covenants. (C 311 (Ex. C)) Bowron’s attorney responded to the cease and desist letter, and neither Bowron nor VectorMinima heard anything more from Plaintiffs until the filing of the present lawsuit. (C 317 (Ex. D)) 16. In March 2020, Bowron attended the 2020 World of Modular convention and tradeshow in Orlando, Florida. (C 285 ¶ 15) The convention is an annual show hosted by the Modular Building Institute, a trade organization. Any member of the public can attend the convention. (Id.) The convention provides a list of all convention attendees to each person attending the event. (Id.) Bowron received such a list of industry attendees when he attended the 2020 convention. (Id.) 17. In October 2020, Defendants advertised a public demonstration of the Metaloq system to be held from October 28th until November 3rd. To advertise the demonstration, VectorMinima put information on its publicly available website. In addition, Bowron posted an announcement about the demonstration through his LinkedIn page. (C 269, C 285 ¶ 14) 18. Late afternoon on Friday, October 30, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the underlying lawsuit, seeking emergency relief. (C 115, C 261) The TRO Motion 19. On Friday, October 30, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an action against Defendants in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, Zekelman Industries, Inc., et al. v. Bowron, et
  • 7. 7 al., No. 20 CH 06539. (C 5) Along with a Verified Complaint, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (the “TRO Motion”). (C 115, C 118) The TRO Motion was noticed for hearing three days later, on Monday, November 2, 2020. (C 261) 20. In the TRO Motion, Plaintiffs alleged that Bowron was in violation of the non- competition and non-solicitation covenants of his Agreement, that Defendants had misappropriated Plaintiffs’ trade secrets, and that Defendants were infringing on Plaintiffs’ “Vector” trademark. (C 115) 21. In response, Defendants showed that Plaintiffs failed to adequately allege any imminent and irreparable harm. (C 268-269) In particular, Defendants showed that Plaintiffs failed to adequately explain their failure of waiting eight months to file a motion seeking emergency relief in October 2020 based on factual allegations they had known about since February 2020. (Id.) Further, the putative basis of the emergency motion, which was the demonstration Defendants held from October 28 – November 3, 2020, was already over. (Id.) Additionally, at no point in their TRO Motion or other supporting materials did Plaintiffs show that they had lost any actual customers or were in imminent danger of losing any actual customers. (Id.) 22. Defendants also showed that Plaintiffs had not demonstrated any likelihood of success on the merits of their claims. (C 269-278) With respect to their misappropriation claim, Plaintiffs never identified what alleged trade secrets were misappropriated or when, and they failed to include any well-pleaded facts alleging that Defendants used any allegedly misappropriated trade secrets. (C 269-271) Instead, Plaintiffs relied upon broad, conclusory statements lacking any meaningful fact or detail that are insufficient to support the extraordinary
  • 8. 8 remedy of granting injunctive relief. (Id.) Plaintiffs also failed to adequately demonstrate how it Bowron would inevitably disclose any of their alleged trade secrets. (Id.) 23. Defendants also showed that Bowron was not in violation of the non-competition covenant of his Agreement. (C 271-273) As an initial matter, as interpreted by Plaintiffs, the Agreement is so vague and ambiguous that it is unenforceable, as Bowron would not be able to determine how long the restrictions remain in effect or whether his actions violate the Agreement. (C 272-273) The non-competition covenant runs for the two-year period following the “later of the expiration of the Term or the Date of Termination.” (Id., C 295 §7(a)) However, as used elsewhere in context of the Agreement, “Term” is used unambiguously with reference to the actual duration of Bowron’s employment, which all parties do not dispute ended on January 31, 2018. (C 272) Plaintiffs argue that “Term” also means a static, five-year term ending in May 2022. (C 333) But Plaintiffs’ reading would render the Agreement internally conflicted and unenforceable. Moreover, the narrow definition of “Covered Business” in the non- competition provision only applies to direct manufacturing. Plaintiffs, for the first time in their reply materials in the trial court, argued that it was also a violation of the non-competition covenant to be “greatly interested in” the modular industry (C 331-332), which would expand the non-competition covenant beyond any legitimate protectable business interest and prohibit Bowron from teaching to blogging to meeting and to planning. The only reasonable interpretation of the non-competition covenant is that it expired on January 31, 2020, and thus any alleged actions after that date cannot form the basis of a breach of contract. (C 273) 24. With respect to the non-solicitation covenant, Defendants showed that Plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on the merits of their claim because the non-solicitation covenant’s duration was as vague and ambiguous as duration of the non-competition covenant, as they used
  • 9. 9 identical language. (C 273-275) Further, Defendants showed that the non-solicitation covenant was overbroad, vague, and unenforceable for two additional reasons. First, it applies not only to customers and employees of Bowron’s former employer (Zekelman), but also to Zekelman’s “parents, related entities, and any of its direct or indirect subsidiaries.” (Id.) Second, it covers customers and employees of these numerous, unrelated entities irrespective of whether Bowron actually had any personal contact with them, or even whether they were customers or employees of Zekelman during Bowron’s employment. (Id.) Additionally, the prohibitions in the non- solicitation covenant prohibit Bowron and his “affiliates” from entering into any “business relationship reasonably deemed competitive” with the business of Zekelman or its parents, related entities, or direct and indirect subsidiaries. (Id.) However, Bowron has no way of knowing who his “affiliates” are or which “business relationship” he or his “affiliates” enter into may be “reasonably deemed competitive” with one of the many covered entities, or who would deem it to be so. (Id.) 25. With respect to the trademark infringement claim, Defendants showed that Plaintiffs did not demonstrate any likelihood of confusion between the two names used: VectorBloc and VectorMinima. (C 275 – 278) Defendants showed that the two names were not similar in appearance or suggestion; that the degree of care to be exercised by consumers is high; that the Plaintiffs’ mark is weak as it entered a crowded field of other trademark owners using the word “vector”; that Plaintiffs provided no evidence of actual confusion among the relevant consuming public, other than a self-serving affidavit from the Plaintiffs themselves; and that Defendants had no intent to palm off their product as that of the Plaintiffs. (Id.)
  • 10. 10 26. Finally, Defendants demonstrated that the balance of harms weighed heavily in their favor, as the entry of a TRO would be severely detrimental to Bowron and his family. (C 278-279) 27. Plaintiffs filed their reply materials in support of the TRO Motion on November 10, 2020 (C 328), and the Court held a hearing via Zoom on the TRO Motion on November 16, 2020. (R 1) At the hearing, Plaintiffs stated that for purposes of the hearing, they were only seeking a TRO and not a preliminary injunction. (R 16:6-24) 28. On November 20, 2020, the Court issued the November 20 Order, finding that Plaintiffs had shown a “fair question” on the elements of their claims. (C 379) 29. Defendants timely filed a notice of interlocutory appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 307(d) on November 23, 2020. (C 390-392) Need for Relief 30. Defendants respectfully submit that the trial court erred in granting the TRO Motion. Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate, on the manifest weight of the evidence provided, that they satisfied any of the elements needed to obtain a temporary restraining order. Accordingly, Defendants respectfully submit that the November 20 Order should be reversed. 31. In support of this Petition, Defendants refer the Court to their accompanying memorandum of law and the Supporting Record. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Court reverse the trial court’s November 20 Order and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with the decision and directions of the Appellate Court, and for such other and further relief as the Appellate Court may deem proper.
  • 11. 11 Dated: November 23, 2020. Respectfully submitted, /s/ James L. Wideikis James L. Wideikis (#6278707) Matthew J. Feery (#6296353) Much Shelist, P.C. 191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60606 Firm I.D. No. 48345 Telephone: 312-521-2000 Facsimile: 312-521-2100 jwideikis@muchlaw.com mfeery@muchlaw.com Counsel for Defendants Julian Bowron and VectorMinima, Inc.