Phil Kaplan uses litigation as a tool to help clients solve complex problems that interfere with their businesses.

Phil litigates a wide range of business-related disputes, with an emphasis on real estate and shareholder litigation. In the real estate and shareholder arenas, Phil has represented clients in lawsuits involving lease interpretation and enforcement, land use, real estate purchases, shareholder buyouts, and fiduciary duties in privately-held companies. He has also represented clients in breach of contract, unfair competition, professional malpractice, employment, intellectual property, and trade secret cases.

Phil represents both plaintiffs and defendants. His clients include individuals, small businesses, and large corporations.

Phil has appeared in multiple state and federal courts and before arbitration panels. He has experience at every stage of the litigation process, from the start of a lawsuit through appeal.

Phil recognizes that litigation is a means to an end — not an end in itself. From the beginning of each case, Phil works with clients to determine their ultimate business objectives and formulate strategies to effectively and efficiently meet those objectives. Phil has achieved favorable results for clients by keeping their individual goals in mind, rather than taking a one-size-fits-all approach to litigation.

Real Estate Cases

Martin v. Marquee Pacific, LLC et al., 906 N.W.2d 65 (N.D. 2018)

Represented a real estate developer who claimed that a debtor fraudulently transferred property in Minot, North Dakota to avoid paying the developer’s debt. After the trial court dismissed the developer’s fraudulent transfer claims, Anthony Ostlund successfully appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court, which reversed the trial court’s decision.

Kieran’s Irish Pub First Avenue LLC v. Camelot LLC, State of Minnesota, Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CV-14-17485 (2016)

Defended the owner and developer of Mayo Clinic Square (formerly Block E) in Downtown Minneapolis in a lease dispute regarding our client’s redevelopment of the building and calculation of a tenant’s share of water bills. The parties reached a settlement agreement shortly before trial.

Minneapolis Venture, LLC v. Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority, State of Minnesota, Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CV-13-15247 (2013)

Represented the owner of the Downtown East property across from the Metrodome, which included a Plaza used for Vikings game-day concessions and events. To resolve a dispute over the Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority’s current and future use of the property, Anthony Ostlund negotiated a purchase agreement that required the Authority to buy the property for $17.1 million, $12.6 million more than its tax-assessed value.

Camelot LLC v. AMC ShowPlace Theatres, Inc., 665 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 2012)

Represented the owner of Block E (now known as Mayo Clinic Square) in Downtown Minneapolis in a dispute over the duration of the AMC movie theater’s lease, which had allowed AMC to use about 40% of the building effectively rent-free for 10 years. Anthony Ostlund successfully moved for summary judgment declaring that a purported option to extend the lease for another 10 years was actually an unenforceable “agreement to agree.”

St. Paul Pioneer Holdings, Inc. v. U.S. Bank National Association, State of Minnesota, Ramsey County District Court File No. 62-CV-08-2265 (2010)

Represented the owner of the historic Pioneer-Endicott building in Downtown St. Paul in a dispute over damages a long-time tenant had caused to the building. The case settled after the trial court entered a key ruling in favor of Anthony Ostlund’s client on the proper measure of its damages.

Shareholder Cases

Twin City Fan Companies and Barry Family Litigation (2018)

Represented Melanie Barry and Twin City Fan Companies in well-publicized, multi-faceted litigation against Charles Barry, including a divorce proceeding in Florida, an arbitration in Minnesota regarding Mr. Barry’s employment agreement, and multiple shareholder lawsuits in Minnesota state court. The parties reached a settlement agreement after months of discovery and motion practice and the issuance of a favorable special litigation committee report.

Family Business Dispute in Stearns County (2013)

Represented a minority partner of a family-owned business in a lawsuit against her partners. Anthony Ostlund negotiated a buyout of its client’s ownership interest on the eve of trial.

Houseman v. Whittington, 2012 WL 4052896 (Minn. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2012), rev. denied, Nov. 27, 2012

Defended a shareholder and officer of a Delaware corporation in a lawsuit started by a fellow shareholder following a corporate merger. All claims against Anthony Ostlund’s client were dismissed.

North Valley, Inc. v. Valley Paving, Inc., 2011 WL 1546489 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2011)

Represented a shareholder whose co-shareholder had begun to unfairly compete with the company. The case settled after the Minnesota Court of Appeals entered a decision in favor of Anthony Ostlund’s client.

Other Cases

Confidential AAA Arbitration (2016)

Represented a loose fill manufacturer in a case against its distributor – a large, national seller of packaging products that had started selling a competitive loose fill. The parties settled their dispute as part of an agreement by the distributor to buy the operating assets of Anthony Ostlund’s client.

Confidential AAA Arbitration (2015)

Pursued accounting malpractice claims against a Big Four accounting firm on behalf of a group of individual clients. Anthony Ostlund negotiated a favorable settlement for its clients after a two-week arbitration hearing.

Brenny v. Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota, 813 N.W.2d 417 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012)

Defended the University of Minnesota’s former head golf coach in a lawsuit brought by a former associate women’s golf coach. All claims against Anthony Ostlund's client were dismissed.

U.S. Bank N.A. v. mPayy, Inc., 10-CV-00625 (D. Minn. May 27, 2010)

Successfully moved to dismiss all claims against Anthony Ostlund’s client, a Chicago- based company, for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Campbell-Sevey, Inc. v. Delta-T Corporation, 2010 WL 1411118 (D. Minn. Feb. 18, 2010)

Successfully moved to dismiss all claims against Anthony Ostlund’s client, a California- based company, for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Kohout v. PDG, P.A., 2009 WL 1032963 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Jan. 23, 2009)

Defended a dental care provider in a lawsuit brought by former employees of a separate company that provided administrative services to Anthony Ostlund’s client. All claims against Anthony Ostlund’s client were dismissed.

Volunteer, Children's Law Center

Volunteer, Metropolitan Economic Development Association (MEDA)

Volunteer, University of Minnesota Business Law Clinic

Member, National Association for Industrial and Office Parks (NAIOP) (inactive)

Member, Hennepin County Bar Association

Member, Minnesota State Bar Association

Member, Federal Bar Association

Get Out: How to Force a Non-Statutory Buyout From a Company, Attorney At Law Magazine - Minnesota Edition, October 2018

Great, Now How Am I Supposed to Value an S Corp? Minnesota Lawyer - Partner Content, May 2018

Getting Credits (And Debits): Accounting Basics for Lawyers, Attorney at Law Magazine - Minnesota Edition, November 2017

Broker Beware: Get Your Commission Agreements in Writing, Minnesota Lawyer - Partner Content, April 2017

Of Landlords and Tenants: How Commercial Leases Can Go Awry, Attorney at Law Magazine - Minnesota Edition, August 2016

Developing Stories: A Primer on Building Height Restrictions, Attorney at Law Magazine - Minnesota Edition, May 2015

In Defense of Appraisers: Strategies for Minimizing Appraiser Liability Risk, Attorney at Law Magazine - Minnesota Edition, October 2014

Representing a Landowner in the Context of a Stadium Development, Hennepin County Bar Association, December 12, 2013


X

Sending us an e-mail message will not make you a client of Anthony Ostlund Baer & Louwagie P.A. If you are interested in representation, please call us directly so that we may arrange a meeting to determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We do not make that determination over email.  We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.