Business and Commercial Litigation

Print this Page

Representing local, regional and national entities, Cosgrave has been entrusted with significant uninsured business and commercial litigation matters, that include business torts and a variety of failed transactions in various industries, including manufacturing, real estate, hospitality and environmental, to name a few.  Cosgrave also represents businesses in regulatory matters before state agencies.

The key to the successes of our clients is in team building, client collaboration, and cost control.  At trial, we excel, as that is what Cosgrave has done for 75 years, earning frequent recognition among its peers and praise from its clients.

Below are some representative matters:

Representative Matters

PGE v. Research Cottrell
Dave Morrison and Aukjen Ingraham recently defended Research Cottrell in an action brought by Portland General Electric Company.  Research Cottrell, a leader nationally in the construction of cooling towers, was sued for a significant amount of money arising out of its construction of a cooling tower built for PGE in the mid 1970s.  The defense required the resurrection and investigation of witnesses and work practices 30 years ago.  Hundreds of thousands of documents were produced by the parties.  From this, key evidence and witness testimony was collected and organized.  Co-chair of our appellate practice group, Tom Christ, then prepared and presented a motion for summary judgment arguing that the action against Research Cottrell should be dismissed.  PGE filed its own cross motion for summary judgment seeking judgment in its favor.  Cosgrave defeated PGE's cross motion for summary judgment and the court granted Research Cottrell summary judgment dismissing the action.

Sarah Nordbye v. BRCP/GM Ellington, et. al.
Susan Eggum was retained by BRCP/GM Ellington, a joint venture of Broadreach Capital Partners, LLC of San Francisco, California and Guardian Management, LLC, to defend an action filed by Sarah Nordbye, representing a putative class of plaintiffs.  The action arose out of the joint venture's $18 million purchase in 2006 of a large multi-unit apartment complex in Portland, Oregon.  Plaintiff contended that BRCP/GM Ellington was bound by a 1991 covenant between the prior owner and the Oregon Housing and Community Services Department which provided that all of the rentable units were subject to rent limitations imposed under Internal Revenue Code sec. 42. BCRP/GM Ellington argued that the covenant had been rescinded in 2005. Plaintiff countered that the rescission was void under Oregon law and the Internal Revenue Code. The central issues revolved around the requirements of IRC sec. 42, the State's authority under that code and its discretionary authority under its own Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program.  David Morrison succeeded in reaching an agreement with Chicago Title Insurance Company that it would pay Cosgrave's defense of the action under a reservation of rights. The case involved complex statutory and administrative law issues with little decisional law from the courts to assist in the analysis.  David Morrison handled all discovery. We then filed a motion for summary judgment seeking a dismissal of the suit.  Plaintiff filed a cross motion for summary judgment.  One of the co-chairs of Cosgrave's appellate practice group, Thom Brown, argued the motions.  On January 29, 2009, the court denied plaintiff's cross motion, and in a detailed eight page opinion, granted summary judgment in favor of BRCP/GM Ellington clearing title of all low-income rental restrictions and burdensome regulatory requirements that threatened transferability.

Daimler Trucks of North America, LLC v. Ramin Younessi
Partner Susan Eggum was asked by Daimler Trucks of North America, LLC, fka, Freightliner LLC, to commence an action in federal court against a former executive responsible for test engineering.  The former executive, Ramin Younessi, had resigned to work in Illinois for a major competitor, Navistar International.  The claims raised were for breach of the duty of loyalty, conversion and breach of contract.  Younessi answered the complaint with six countersuits including alleged violations of ERISA, the Oregon wage and hour laws, and Section 1981, which bars discrimination on the basis of race.  A variety of substantive issues were addressed in pleading and discovery motions, including  the role of ethnicity and national origin under Section 1981, and the rights of foreign parent corporations, namely Daimler AG, under an international treaty of friendship and commerce.  Susan Eggum was substantially assisted by a trial and appellate team, including Paul Berg, representing Daimler Trucks' interests in first and third party discovery, including electronic discovery issues raised in several other jurisdictions.  The case additionally raised issues concerning adverse interference instructions to be given at trial arising out of Daimler Trucks' claim that Younessi had intentionally destroyed key electronic evidence during the pendency of a matter.  Following nearly a year of litigation, the suit resolved prior to trial to the client's satisfaction.  Click on Daimler Trucks client testimonial.   Any result we acheive for one client does not indicate similar results can be obtained for other clients.

Partnership Dissolution Matter
Lead by Frank Lagesen and Jason Pistacchio, Cosgrave successfully prosecuted a partnership dissolution claim on behalf of a partner unknowingly deprived of the partnership's sole asset, a large commercial property complex in Portland, Oregon.  The partners had originally agreed to go into business together to acquire, construct and manage the commercial property.  After working together to construct and lease the property, the defendant partner secretly transferred title in the property to himself and his wife, and then later sold the property for a substantial profit, without the knowledge or consent of his partner.  After learning of the sale, Cosgrave commenced suit and conducted discovery.  After presenting our client's case during a multi-day arbitration, the defendant asked to delay further proceedings and to resume settlement discussions.  A settlement of nearly $900,000 was reached, all of which has now been paid to our client.

Synectic Ventures I, LLC et. al. v. Craig Berkman, et. al.
Frank Lagesen was asked to represent a large and well diversified Northwest accounting firm, named in a multiple claim securities suit.  The action was brought by over 40 investors against Craig Berkman, the former manager of three venture capital funds Berkman formed and others, including Arthur Andersen, a former international CPA firm.  The suit contended, among other things, that Berkman defrauded investors of sums exceeding $40 million and that Cosgrave's client and other defendants participated and/or failed to report to investors Berkman's alleged pilfering of funds.   Plaintiff's' claims against Cosgrave's client were denied in all respects and after discovery the claims against it were resolved by mutual agreement before trial.  Claims against an unnamed law firm were similarly resolved.  The case then proceeded to trial against Berkman and his entities and Andersen.  After a trial of about 6 weeks, a jury returned a verdict collectively in excess of $20 million against Berkman, his entities and Andersen.