Smith Gambrell Beats Back Bid to 'Re-Brand' Midtown Promenade Offices
An arbitration panel agreed with Smith, Gambrell & Russell that Cousins Properties may not place illuminated logos for an accounting firm atop Atlanta's iconic Promenade.
January 05, 2018 at 01:29 PM
4 minute read
Smith, Gambrell & Russell has won a yearslong battle with its landlord, Cousins Properties, over a plan that would have seen large, illuminated logos for an accounting firm placed at the top of Atlanta's landmark Promenade.
Last month, after litigation that wound its way to the Georgia Court of Appeals and back, an arbitration panel sided with Smith Gambrell, ruling the placement of the signage for Frazier & Deeter—”a more recent tenant and a lesser tenant”—violated the terms of the law firm's lease.
The panel agreed with Smith Gambrell that the installation of the signs would constitute a “de facto change in the name of the building,” where the firm's filings indicate it pays about $5 million a year in rent.
Smith Gambrell sued Cousins in 2014, arguing the placement of four 17-foot square “signature” signs bearing Frazier & Deeter's “FD” logo atop the tower violated the terms of its lease agreement, and demanded that the plan be stopped.
The Promenade is a 40-story tower topped with a distinctive ziggurat-styled spire and stainless steel fins that looms over Peachtree and 15th streets in Midtown.
Smith Gambrell has been the Promenade's largest tenant since shortly after the tower opened in 1990, and claimed in its complaint that it was contractually guaranteed the right to approve any “substantial addition … or alteration” to the building's exterior.
Cousins bought the property in 2011, when the building was 40 percent vacant, and F&D began discussions to move in two years later.
According to court filings, F&D indicated to Cousins that unless it was granted “branding” rights atop the building, it would go somewhere else, although it subsequently leased space and maintains offices there today.
Cousins agreed to install illuminated “signature signs” for F&D just below the Promenade's pinnacle that would be visible from Atlanta's downtown expressways.
Smith Gambrell's 2014 complaint, filed in Fulton County Superior Court by Chilivis, Cochran, Larkins & Bevers partners Anthony Cochran and John Larkins Jr., argued the placement of the logos would constitute a “de facto renaming of the building” and that, “so long as it is the largest tenant at Promenade, its right to signage trumps those of any other tenant.”
Smith Gambrell also argued the signs violated city ordinances and threatened the “architectural and aesthetic integrity” of the building.
The suit included an affidavit from one of the Promenade's lead architects, Thomas Ventulett III, stating that the Promenade “was never intended to have signs attached near the top of the building where its distinctive architectural features and lighting appear.”
F&D was not a party to the litigation.
In 2015 Cousins, represented by Troutman Sanders partner Thomas Reilly, moved to compel arbitration. Judge Alford Dempsey Jr. granted the motion.
Smith Gambrell appealed to the Court of Appeals, which upheld Dempsey's ruling that there was no breach of the lease's arbitration clause.
On Dec. 20, an arbitration panel consisting of Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore partner Emmet Bondurant, Ford & Harrison partner F. Carlton King Jr. and Senior Fulton County Superior Court Judge Philip Etheridge ruled the installation of the signs without the law firm's consent “is prohibited by and would constitute a material breach of multiple provisions” of the 2003 lease.
The panel also awarded Smith Gambrell more than $140,000 incurred only in prosecuting the arbitration action, and not any fees associated with the prior litigation.
Smith Gambrell moved to have Dempsey confirm and enter the award on Tuesday.
Asked whether the firm would seek attorney fees, Cochran said Smith Gambrell “has no comment on the award other than that it speaks for itself, and does not want to comment on anything that might occur in the future.”
Reilly and a spokeswoman for Cousins did not respond to requests for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFowler White Burnett Opens Jacksonville Office Focused on Transportation Practice
3 minute readOn The Move: Polsinelli Adds Health Care Litigator in Nashville, Ex-SEC Enforcer Joins BCLP in Atlanta
6 minute readWoman's Suit Alleging Negligence to Sex Trafficking by Hotel Tossed by Federal Judge
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250