actually no intent to perform the contract.”) (emphasis added). Before the district court on summary judgment, ABS based its argument relating to AdvancePCS’ intent to defraud at the time the statement was made on evidence that AdvancePCS ultimately did not fulfill its promise and that “reflecting back,” one of ABS’ witnesses, Blixt, believed “that at the time defendant had no intention of honoring the agreement it committed to.” R.134 at 26-27. On this evidence, ABS has not created a genuine issue of triable fact as to AdvancePCS’ intent. Illinois law does not allow the plaintiffs to proceed on a fraud claim when the evidence of intent to defraud consists of nothing more than unfulfilled promises and allegations made in hindsight. See Bower v. Jones, 978 F.2d 1004, 1012 (7th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Before this court, ABS further contends that
recognizing that the burden of proof is an essential element of the claim itself and that one who asserts a claim has the burden of proof that normally comes with it holding that proof that a promise was not kept alone is insufficient to make out a claim of promissory fraud since there is no proof that the defendants made the promise never intending to keep it holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant holding that the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof applicable in fraud actions does not apply to the proof of misrepresentations under ors 743612 holding that proof of conspiracy is susceptible to generalized proof since focus is on what defendants did and said