You are on page 1of 14

Case 6:16-cv-01199

Document 1

Filed 06/23/16

Page 1 of 14

Darien S. Loiselle, OSB #925796
Email: dloiselle@schwabe.com
Stephanie Holmberg, OSB #082925
Email: sholmberg@schwabe.com
SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.
1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: 503.222.9981
Facsimile: 503.796.2900
Attorneys for Plaintiff Sparkasse
Bregenz Bank AG

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION

SPARKASSE BREGENZ BANK, AG,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 6:16-cv-1199
COMPLAINT

vs.
JC-BIOMETHANE, LLC; ESSENTIAL
CONSULTING OREGON LLC; and
DEAN FOOR,
Defendants.
COMES NOW Sparkasse Bregenz Bank AG (“Sparkasse” or “Plaintiff”), and files this
Complaint against JC-Biomethane, LLC (“JCB”), Essential Consulting Oregon, LLC (“ECO”)
and Dean Foor (“FOOR”) (collectively, “Defendants”), showing the Court as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1.

This is an action for copyright infringement, violations of the Digital Millennium

Copyright Act and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, misappropriation of trade secrets,
Page 1 -

COMPLAINT

PDX\128073\200990\SHO\18575326.1

SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.
Attorneys at Law
1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: 503.222.9981
Fax: 503.796.2900

Case 6:16-cv-01199

Document 1

Filed 06/23/16

Page 2 of 14

conversion, breach of contract, quantum meruit, and breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing
that arises from Entec Biogas GmbH (“Entec”)’s agreement to engineer, procure, and
construction a bio-methane plant for JCB.
PARTIES
2.

Entec is an Austrian corporation that specializes in the design and construction of

biogas fueled energy facilities.
3.

Sparkasse Bregenz Bank AG is an Austrian bank that provided commercial loans

to Entec and which has taken an assignment of Entec’s claims in this matter.
4.

JC-Biomethane, LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws of

the State of Oregon with its principal place of business in Junction City, Oregon. Service of
process on JCB may be obtained by serving its registered agent Mike Arnold, 401 East Tenth
Avenue, Suite 400, Eugene, OR 97401.
5.

Essential Consulting Oregon, LLC is a limited liability company organized under

the laws of the State of Oregon with it principal place of business in Eugene, Oregon. Service of
process on ECO may be obtained by serving its registered agent Dean C. Foor, 1543 W. 24th
Place, Eugene, OR 97405.
6.

FOOR is a resident of the state of Oregon, and at all relevant times was a member

of ECO. Upon information and belief, FOOR also served as the chief executive officer of JCB
until JCB fired him in or about June of 2014. Service of process on FOOR may be obtained by
serving him at his residence at 259 WALNUT DR S, MONMOUTH, OR 97361.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C.

§ 1121(a), 17 U.S.C. § 501 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338 and 1367.
8.

Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), as JCB and ECO

have their principal places of business located within this District, and FOOR resides within this
District.
Page 2 -

COMPLAINT

PDX\128073\200990\SHO\18575326.1

SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.
Attorneys at Law
1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: 503.222.9981
Fax: 503.796.2900

Case 6:16-cv-01199

Document 1

Filed 06/23/16

Page 3 of 14

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
9.

The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 8 above are incorporated herein

by reference.
10.

Prior to April 22, 2012, JCB decided to build a biogas energy facility in Junction

City, Oregon. Upon information and belief, JCB decided to use pre-consumer food waste as a
feedstock for the plant, so as to receive certain tax credits or other incentives or subsidies
available to users of that waste stream.
11.

On or about April 22, 2012, JCB entered into an Engineering, Procurement and

Construction Agreement (“EPC Contract”) with Entec for the design, procurement, and
construction of the bio-energy facility in Junction City, Oregon (the “Project”). A true and
correct copy of the EPC Contract, without voluminous incorporated documents, is attached
hereto as Exhibit “A.”
12.

Section 19 of the EPC Contract provides that “[e]ntire drawings, sketches,

calculations, documents and information which have been and will be supplied (the
‘Documents’)” (herein “Design Documents”) “are the intellectual property of [Entec] and will
remain in the copyright of [Entec]. [JCB] is allowed to use the [Design] Documents only with
written permission from [Entec].”
13.

Sparkasse provided loans to Entec for the design and construction of the Project.

14.

Upon information and belief, after JCB entered the EPC Contract, JCB, acting

through ECO, FOOR, and/or other representatives, learned that the tax credit or subsidies for
users of pre-consumer food waste would not be available for the Project. As a result, JCB, acting
through ECO, FOOR, and/or other representatives, directed Entec to change the design of the
Project to use post-consumer food waste, instead of pre-consumer food waste, as the feedstock
for the Project, resulting in additional cost to Entec and delaying completion of the Project.
15.

JCB, acting through ECO, FOOR and/or other representatives directed Entec to

make other changes in the design or construction of the Project, and JCB failed to timely pay
Page 3 -

COMPLAINT

PDX\128073\200990\SHO\18575326.1

SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.
Attorneys at Law
1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: 503.222.9981
Fax: 503.796.2900

Case 6:16-cv-01199

Document 1

Filed 06/23/16

Page 4 of 14

Entec for work it performed, which resulted in additional costs to Entec and delayed completion
of the Project.
16.

The Project began generating electrical power in the summer of 2013.

17.

The Project achieved mechanical completion in the fall of 2013.

18.

Entec substantially performed its obligations under the EPC Contract; however,

JCB has failed to pay Entec for the work it performed and for the additional costs caused by
JCB’s breaches of the EPC Contract and its changes to Project.
19.

Entec demanded payment from JCB of amounts due and owing under the EPC

Contract.
20.

JCB has failed and refused to pay Entec the amounts that were due and owing to

Entec under the EPC Contract.
21.

On or about January 23, 2013 Entec and Ormatic GmbH (“Ormatic”) entered into

a subcontract for the development and supply of a Software Program titled “Automated Control
System Software for Junction City” integrating a human-machine interface Human Machine
Interface (“HMI”) and Programmable Logic Controller (“PLC”) (collectively referred to as the
“Software Program”) to run the Project.
22.

Ormatic prevented the modification or manipulation of the Software Program by

JCB and third-parties by creating access to the Software Program via a password known only to
a few developers at Ormatic. Neither Ormatic nor Entec provided the password to JCB, FOOR,
or ECB at any point in time.
23.

In an email from FOOR to Stefan Schmoranzer of Ormatic dated February 12,

2014, FOOR indicates that JCB accessed the Software Program, albeit without the password or
authorization by Entec or Ormatic, when he writes, “Further, the code is written in German-lish
[sic] and in a manner to intentionally create dependency and with a multitude of relic code.”
Email attached as Exhibit B.

Page 4 -

COMPLAINT

PDX\128073\200990\SHO\18575326.1

SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.
Attorneys at Law
1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: 503.222.9981
Fax: 503.796.2900

Case 6:16-cv-01199

24.

Document 1

Filed 06/23/16

Page 5 of 14

Upon information and belief, JCB, ECB, and FOOR accessed the Software

Program and modified or manipulated it (“Unauthorized Modifications”), causing damage to or
otherwise disabling parts of the Software Program.
25.

JCB’s failure to pay Entec for the installation of the Software Program, the

Unauthorized Modifications to the Software Program, and JCB’s ongoing operation of the
Project and use of the Software Program without having paid Entec for a license to use the
Software Program, have damaged Entec in an amount exceeding $5,000.
26.

Entec instituted an Austrian insolvency proceeding to liquidate its business, due in

full or in substantial part to JCB’s refusal and failure to pay Entec amounts due under the EPC
Contract.
27.

All conditions precedent to the filing of this action have occurred, have been

satisfied, and/or have been waived or excused.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Copyright Infringement of the Software Program and Design Documents, 17 U.S.C. § 501(a))
28.

The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 27 above are incorporated herein

by reference.
29.

Ormatic is the author of the Software Program. Entec payed Ormatic for the right

to use the Software Program in connection with the Project, but Ormatic retained all copyrights
in the Software Program.
Without permission or license from Ormatic, Defendants prepared derivative works
within the United States based upon Ormatic’s copyrighted Software Program when they
modified the Software Program.
30.

The conduct of Defendants constitutes copyright infringement in violation of 17

U.S.C. § 501.
31.

Defendants’ wrongful conduct has deprived Entec of its goodwill and has caused

harm to Entec.
Page 5 -

COMPLAINT

PDX\128073\200990\SHO\18575326.1

SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.
Attorneys at Law
1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: 503.222.9981
Fax: 503.796.2900

Case 6:16-cv-01199

32.

Document 1

Filed 06/23/16

Page 6 of 14

Defendants’ acts of copyright infringement are continuing and have been

committed willfully with knowledge of Entec’s rights in the Software Program and the Design
Documents.
33.

Defendants infringed Entec’s copyrights intentionally and with malice.

34.

On April 15, 2016, Ormatic assigned its copyright in and the right to sue for past

infringement of the Software Program to Sparkasse.
35.

On June 9, 2016, Sparkasse filed an application with the Register of Copyrights to

register the Software Program. A copy of the application is attached as Exhibit C.
36.

Plaintiff has suffered damages as a proximate result of the infringements by

Defendants.
37.

Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendants statutory damages, or the damages

it has suffered and any additional profits the Defendants obtained as a result of their wrongful
acts as hereinabove alleged pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems, 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a))
38.

The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 27 are incorporated herein by

reference.
39.

Ormatic’s copyrighted Software Program was password protected.

40.

Neither Plaintiff, Ormatic, nor Entec provided Defendants with use of the

password to access the protected work at any point in time.
41.

Without permission or license from Plaintiff, Ormatic, or Entec, Defendants

hacked into Entec’s computer systems to access Ormatic’s Software Program and modify the
Software Program.
42.

The conduct of Defendants constitutes circumvention of copyright protections

systems in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a).

Page 6 -

COMPLAINT

PDX\128073\200990\SHO\18575326.1

SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.
Attorneys at Law
1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: 503.222.9981
Fax: 503.796.2900

Case 6:16-cv-01199

43.

Document 1

Filed 06/23/16

Page 7 of 14

Defendants’ wrongful conduct has deprived Entec and Ormatic of its goodwill

and has caused harm to Entec and Ormatic.
44.

Defendants’ circumvention of the copyright protection system of the Software

Program was committed willfully with knowledge of Entec’s and Ormatic’s rights in and
protection of the Software Program.
45.

Defendants’ circumvention of the copyright protection system of the Software

Program was committed intentionally and with malice.
46.

Ormatic and Entec suffered damages as a proximate result of Defendants’

circumvention of the copyright protection system, including the destruction of Entec’s business.
47.

On April 15, 2016, Ormatic assigned its copyright in and the right to sue for past

infringement of the Software Program to Sparkasse.
48.

Plaintiff Sparkasse provided the commercial loans to Entec and has taken an

assignment of Entec’s claims in this matter.
49.

Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendants statutory damages, or the damages

Entec and Ormatic have suffered and any additional profits the Defendants obtained as a result of
their wrongful acts as hereinabove alleged pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1203.
50.

Additionally, Plaintiff requests this Court to provide for the recovery of costs

and/or award reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1203(b)(4) and 17 U.S.C. §
1203(b)(5).
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030, 1030(g))
51.

The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 27 are incorporated herein by

reference.
52.

At all times relevant hereto, Entec’s computer system was routinely involved in

sending and receiving electronic communications in interstate commerce. As such, Entec’s

Page 7 -

COMPLAINT

PDX\128073\200990\SHO\18575326.1

SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.
Attorneys at Law
1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: 503.222.9981
Fax: 503.796.2900

Case 6:16-cv-01199

Document 1

Filed 06/23/16

Page 8 of 14

computer system constitutes a “protected computer” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §
1030(e)(2)(B).
53.

Ormatic’s copyrighted Software Program was maintained on Entec’s computer

system.
54.

Defendants intentionally accessed Entec’s protected computer system and used

such access to obtain information from Entec’s protected computers that Defendants were not
entitled to obtain.

Defendants’ access was without authorization or “exceeded authorized

access,” as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(6).
55.

By their conduct, Defendants obtained information and caused loss to Entec and

Ormatic in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(2)(C) and 1030(a)(5)(C).
56.

Defendants recklessly caused damage to Entec and Ormatic in violation of 18

U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(5)(B) by modifying the Software Program.
57.

As the direct result of the conduct of Defendants, Entec has incurred reasonable

costs to respond to the unauthorized access of its computer system and the theft of the
information thereon, to conduct a damage assessment, and other consequential damages and
losses incurred thereby, in an aggregate amount exceeding $5,000.
58.

Plaintiff Sparkasse provided the commercial loans to Entec and has taken an

assignment of Entec’s claims in this matter.
59.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g), Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the

Defendants the damages Entec has suffered, as well as gains, profits, advantages, and unjust
enrichment Defendants have obtained as a result of their wrongful acts as hereinabove alleged.
Plaintiff is presently unable to ascertain the full extent of these damages, gains, profits,
advantages, and unjust enrichment.

Page 8 -

COMPLAINT

PDX\128073\200990\SHO\18575326.1

SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.
Attorneys at Law
1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: 503.222.9981
Fax: 503.796.2900

Case 6:16-cv-01199

Document 1

Filed 06/23/16

Page 9 of 14

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, OR. REV. STAT. 646.461 – 646.475)
60.

The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 27 are incorporated herein by

reference.
61.

The Software Program itself and much of the content within the Software

Program is non-public information which derives actual or potential economic value from not
being generally known nor readily ascertainable by proper means by other persons who can
obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.
62.

Entec took reasonable steps to protect the confidentiality of the Software Program

and much of the content within the Software Program, and treated such information as
confidential and proprietary.
63.

The Software Program and much of the content within constitute trade secrets

under Oregon law.
64.

Defendants misappropriated Entec’s trade secrets by accessing, using, and/or

disclosing such trade secrets to an unauthorized person or persons.
65.

Defendants acted with the intent to deprive Entec of the exclusive use of its trade

secrets, and/or to appropriate Entec’s trade secrets to their own use or to the use of another.
66.

Plaintiff Sparkasse provided the commercial loans to Entec and has taken an

assignment of Entec’s claims in this matter.
67.

By stealing Entec’s trade secrets, Defendants have caused damage and loss to

Entec which damages and losses Plaintiff is entitled to recover. Defendants’ misappropriation of
Entec’s trade secrets has been willful and malicious as a result of which, pursuant to OR. REV.
STAT. 646.465(3) and 646.467, Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages in an amount
equal to twice the award made pursuant to OR. REV. STAT. 646.465(1) and (2), and attorney fees
respectively.

Page 9 -

COMPLAINT

PDX\128073\200990\SHO\18575326.1

SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.
Attorneys at Law
1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: 503.222.9981
Fax: 503.796.2900

Case 6:16-cv-01199

68.

Document 1

Filed 06/23/16

Page 10 of 14

Plaintiff is also entitled to recover from Defendants the damages Entec suffered,

as well as the gains, profits, advantages, and unjust enrichment the Defendants have obtained as
a result of their wrongful acts as hereinabove alleged. Plaintiff is currently unable to ascertain
the full extent of these damages, gains, profits, advantages, and unjust enrichment.
69.

Alternatively, if this Court finds that Plaintiff’s damages or Defendants’ gains,

profits, advantages, and unjust enrichment are not adequately proven, Plaintiff is entitled to a
reasonable royalty pursuant to OR. REV. STAT. 646.463(2).
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Conversion, § 22A OF RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS )
70.

The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 27 are incorporated herein by

reference.
71.

Entec is the owner of its Design Documents.

72.

Plaintiff Sparkasse provided the commercial loans to Entec and has taken an

assignment of Entec’s claims in this matter.
73.

Sparkasse is the owner of the Software Program and the content within the

Software Program.
74.

Defendants exercised dominion and control over Sparkasse’s property, including

the Design Documents and the Software Program, to the exclusion of, or inconsistent with,
Sparkasse’s rights.
75.

Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of Defendants’ actions.

76.

Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendants the damages it has suffered, as

well as the gains, profits, advantages, and unjust enrichment the Defendants have obtained as a
result of their wrongful acts as hereinabove alleged. Plaintiff is currently unable to ascertain the
full extent of these damages, gains, profits, advantages, and unjust enrichment.
77.

Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court also award reasonable attorney’s fees

and costs incurred by Plaintiff in bringing this action.
Page 10 -

COMPLAINT

PDX\128073\200990\SHO\18575326.1

SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.
Attorneys at Law
1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: 503.222.9981
Fax: 503.796.2900

Case 6:16-cv-01199

Document 1

Filed 06/23/16

Page 11 of 14

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Breach of Contract)
78.

The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 27 are incorporated herein by

reference.
79.

JCB and Entec entered into the EPC Contract for the design and construction of

the Project.
80.

JCB breached the EPC Contract when (1) JCB failed to pay Entec amounts owed

to Entec; (2) JCB used and/or allowed others to use the Design Documents without written
permission from Entec; (3) JCB made or allowed others to make the Unauthorized Modifications
to the Software; and (4) JCB’s ongoing operation of the Project and use of the Software Program
without having paid Entec for a license to use the Software Program.
81.

Plaintiff Sparkasse provided the commercial loans to Entec and has taken an

assignment of Entec’s claims in this matter.
82.

As a result of these breaches, Entec was damaged in an amount to be proven at

trial, including the destruction of Entec’s business, plus additional damages to be proven at trial,
including interest, costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees. Sparkasse is entitled to recover these
damages.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Quantum Meruit)
83.

The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 27 are incorporated herein by

reference.
84.

Entec performed valuable services in designing and constructing the Project, at

the direction and request of JCB.
85.

JCB unjustly failed and refused to compensate Entec for the services it performed,

even though JCB knew that Entec expected compensation when it performed the services.

Page 11 -

COMPLAINT

PDX\128073\200990\SHO\18575326.1

SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.
Attorneys at Law
1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: 503.222.9981
Fax: 503.796.2900

Case 6:16-cv-01199

86.

Document 1

Filed 06/23/16

Page 12 of 14

Plaintiff Sparkasse provided the commercial loans to Entec and has taken an

assignment of Entec’s claims in this matter.
87.

As a result of the failure and refusal of JCB to compensate Entec, Entec has

suffered losses, costs, and damages in an amount to be proven at trial, plus interest, costs and
attorney’s fees, to which Sparkasse is entitled.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing)
88.

The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 27 are incorporated herein by

reference.
89.

JCB had a duty to Entec to perform and enforce the contract in good faith.

90.

JCB breached this duty by, among other things, (1) making changes to the Project

without paying Entec for the cost of those changes; (2) asserting claims to Entec’s copyrights
and other intellectual property; (3) claiming to have designed the plant even though Entec
designed most of the plant; (4) refusing to pay Entec amounts due to it; (5) making the
Unauthorized Modifications; (6) operating the Project and using of the Software Program
without having paid Entec for a license to use the Software Program; and (7) asserting inflated
and non-meritorious claims and set-offs against Entec and the amounts owed to Entec.
91.

Plaintiff Sparkasse provided the commercial loans to Entec and has taken an

assignment of Entec’s claims in this matter.
92.

As a direct and proximate result of these breaches, Entec was damaged in an

amount to be proven at trial, including the destruction of its business, interest, costs, and
reasonable attorney’s fees, to which Sparkasse is entitled.
WHEREFORE, Sparkasse prays that this Court grant judgment in its favor and against
the Defendants:

Page 12 -

COMPLAINT

PDX\128073\200990\SHO\18575326.1

SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.
Attorneys at Law
1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: 503.222.9981
Fax: 503.796.2900

Case 6:16-cv-01199

1.

Document 1

Filed 06/23/16

Page 13 of 14

On Plaintiff’s First Claim for Relief, in an amount to be proven at trial, plus

additional damages to be proven at trial totaling a minimum of $2,000,000, together with
interest, costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees;
2.

On Plaintiff’s Second Claim for Relief, in an amount to be proven at trial, plus

additional damages to be proven at trial totaling a minimum of $2,000,000, together with
interest, costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees;
3.

On Plaintiff’s Third Claim for Relief, in an amount to be proven at trial, plus

additional damages to be proven at trial totaling a minimum of $2,000,000, together with
interest, costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees;
4.

On Plaintiff’s Fourth Claim for Relief, in an amount to be proven at trial, plus

additional damages to be proven at trial totaling a minimum of $2,000,000, together with
interest, costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees;
5.

On Plaintiff’s Fifth Claim for Relief, in in an amount to be proven at trial, plus

additional damages to be proven at trial totaling a minimum of $2,000,000, together with
interest, costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees;
6.

On Plaintiff’s Sixth Claim for Relief, in an amount to be proven at trial, plus

additional damages to be proven at trial totaling a minimum of $2,000,000, together with
interest, costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees;
7.

On Plaintiff’s Seventh Claim for Relief, in an amount to be proven at trial, plus

additional damages to be proven at trial totaling a minimum of $2,000,000, together with
interest, costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees;

Page 13 -

COMPLAINT

PDX\128073\200990\SHO\18575326.1

SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.
Attorneys at Law
1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: 503.222.9981
Fax: 503.796.2900

Case 6:16-cv-01199

8.

Document 1

Filed 06/23/16

Page 14 of 14

On Plaintiff’s Eighth Claim for Relief, in an amount to be proven at trial, plus

additional damages to be proven at trial totaling a minimum of $2,000,000, together with
interest, costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees; and
9.

Any other affirmative relief that the Court deems necessary and just.

Dated this 23rd day of June, 2016.
Respectfully submitted,
SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.

By:

Page 14 -

COMPLAINT

PDX\128073\200990\SHO\18575326.1

/s/ Stephanie Holmberg
Darien S. Loiselle, OSB #925796
Stephanie Holmberg, OSB #082925
Telephone: 503.222.9981
Facsimile: 503.796.2900
Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Sparkasse
Bregenz Bank AG

SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.
Attorneys at Law
1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: 503.222.9981
Fax: 503.796.2900