Cohn & Co. v. American Appraisal Assocs., Inc., 628 F.2d 994, 999 (7th Cir.1980). We believe that this fear is present because Lesch is subject to a unique defense. Lesch’s deposition testimony showed that in his position during 1985 and 1986, he “had access to all the financial and operational data of the corporate office and the operating companies ... including] Union Underwear [predecessor to Fruit of the Loom]”. Lesch Dep., at pp. 470-71. He also testified that he attended meetings with fellow employees in which they discussed Velsicol’s environmental liabilities and their magnitude. Lesch Dep., at pp. 65-67, 534-41. The issue of Velsicol’s environmental liabilities is a major claim in plaintiffs’ Complaint. See Endo v. Albertine, 812 F.Supp. 1479, 1486-88 (N.D.Ill. Jan. 29, 1993) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, to the extent actual reliance
holding that a motion court is compelled to dismiss late filed claims holding that presumption is applicable in motion to dismiss context holding that a motion to dismiss based on a forumselection clause should be treated as a rule 12b3 motion to dismiss for improper venue holding that the trial court erred by granting the defendants motion to dismiss holding that the issue of velsicols retained environmental liabilities withstands a motion to dismiss while rejecting other claims