misrepresented the superiority of the MSCC process over the former FCC process and that TransAmerican could expect specific yields on implementing the MSCC process. To prevail on this claim under Illinois law, Orion had to establish that TransAmerican, its predecessor-in-interest, had justifiably relied on UOP’s allegedly fraudulent misrepresentations. See Barille, 224 Ill.Dec. 557, 682 N.E.2d at 123; Vigortone, 316 F.3d at 645. In accordance with the well-settled general rule, reliance is not justifiable when the alleged victim of a fraud ignored or “closed his eyes to a known or obvious risk.” Vigortone, 316 F.3d at 645 (citing Mayer v. Spanel Int'l, Ltd., 51 F.3d 670, 676 (7th Cir.1995)); see also Melko v. Dionisio, 219 Ill.App.3d 1048, 162 Ill.Dec. 623, 580 N.E.2d 586, 592 (1991) (<HOLDING>) (citing with approval AMP AT/Midwest, Inc. v.
holding that each class member was not required to prove justifiable reliance when an inference of reliance arises if a materially false representation was made to persons whose acts thereafter were consistent with reliance upon the representations holding that duty of inquiry suspended only if reliance on representations was reasonable holding that plaintiff failed to prove reasonable reliance on a false statement holding in the context of a non  212c iirira retroactivity challenge that if reliance were required we would insist at most upon objectively reasonable reliance and not subjective reliance holding that reasonable reliance is not an element of the defense