• Print
  • |
  • |
  • PDF


Contact Merril

3400 U.S. Bancorp Tower
111 S.W. Fifth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
T: 503.205.2556

Merril A. Keane


Merril A. Keane, an associate in the business department, joined the firm in 2009. Merril's practice covers general business transactions, international business and trade, tax, and executive compensation.

Merril advises clients on formation and governance of business entities and a wide variety of business transactions, including manufacturing, supply, and agency and distribution agreements. Merril's international experience includes training corporate employees in the United States, Asia, and Europe on the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and export controls, assisting clients with trade compliance, and advising on agreements involving international sales.

Merril frequently counsels clients—both for-profit and nonprofit organizations—on a variety of executive compensation matters, such as employment agreements, severance arrangements, and incentive compensation, including design, preparation, and review of nonqualified deferred compensation plans.

Before joining Miller Nash, Merril was an associate with Newcomb, Sabin, Schwartz & Landsverk LLP. Merril and other former Newcomb Sabin attorneys bring wide experience in business, employment law, employee benefits, and labor relations to the combined Miller Nash firm.

Representative Experience

Assisted clients with various aspects of antiboycott compliance, including training employees and advising on IRS and Department of Commerce reporting requirements.
Obtained Department of Commerce scope ruling removing trademarked manufactured products from scope of long-standing anti-dumping order, despite existing contrary scope ruling purporting to cover the same products.
Advised client on significant bilingual (Chinese-English) consulting agreement.
Performed legal compliance audit for China-based subsidiaries of U.S. entity.
Prepared two recent Customs petitions for clients experiencing product seizure and penalties, with the result of 100% and 90% penalty decreases, respectively. One of these results was particularly difficult to obtain because the client had in fact violated registered intellectual property rights with products it had manufactured in China for U.S. sales.