Category Archives: Bankruptcy

Bankruptcy Update: 11th Circuit Strikes the “Remain Unpaid” Element from the New Value Defense to Preference Action

00247192

On August 14, 2018, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (which controls all Florida bankruptcy courts), ruled that certain language in a prior ruling from 1988 was dicta and not binding, and established a new landscape for defending against a preferential transfer claim through a “new value” defense.

In the past, under the authority of Charisma Investment Company, N.V. v. Airport Systems, Inc. (In re Jet Florida System, Inc.), 841 F.2d 1082 (11th Cir. 1988), the Eleventh Circuit was believed to be of the opinion that an offset against preference liability, for new value provided to a debtor, which were made within the preference period, could only be asserted to the extent that any new value extended to the debtor “remained unpaid” as of the date the bankruptcy petition was filed.

However, under the new Blue Bell decision, the Eleventh Circuit held that the language in Charisma was only dicta, not binding, and not accurate.  Therefore, going forward, new value need not remain unpaid as of the time of the bankruptcy petition.

This decision is important because it will eliminate the disincentive that creditors may have in extending credit to a struggling debtor, which was mentioned in the Blue Bell decision.

ERIC N. ASSOULINE, ESQ.

PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW MIAMI ADDRESS

Miami Tower, 100 SE 2nd Street, Suite 3105, Miami, Florida 33131

 Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment Law,  Real Estate, International Dispute Resolution, Commercial Litigation, Corporate Law, and Bankruptcy

Miami · Ft. Lauderdale · Boca Raton

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Bankruptcy, BK, Uncategorized

2018 Litigation Department of the Year – for Real Estate and Other Litigation, Awarded to ASSOULINE & BERLOWE, by Daily Business Review

00236801

ASSOULINE & BERLOWE, the BUSINESS LAW firm was very pleased to receive the following news:

Congratulations! On behalf of the Daily Business Review’s Managing Editor Catherine Wilson, Assouline & Berlowe was selected as one of the 2018 Litigation Departments of the Year in the Small Firm Category (under 70 attorneys), Real Estate and Other Litigation category by the Daily Business Review.

The DBR announced that the honorees will be recognized at an awards reception on Wednesday, May 30, at the Rusty Pelican, 3201 Rickenbacker Causeway, in Key Biscayne. The event will begin with cocktails at 6 p.m., followed by dinner and presentations at 7 p.m. 

It goes without saying that the Firm is exceptionally happy to hear of this news.

The hard work and results Assouline & Berlowe obtained for its clients in 2017 were taken into consideration by the DBR in awarding Assouline & Berlowe this prestigious award.

Case No. 1: David v. Goliaths – The Trial that Defined the Firm’s Resolve

In January 2017, Assouline & Berlowe, P.A.’s (“A&B”) client, Akbar Nikooie, reached the last stage of a “bet the firm” battle against banking giant JP Morgan Chase (“JPMorgan”) and the once ubiquitous title insurance company Attorneys’ Title Insurance Fund (“ATIF”). In a case that started in 2007, when Mr. Nikooie lost his life savings to a multi-level mortgage fraud on a mansion in the posh celebrity laden area of North Bay Road in Miami Beach, the last issue to litigate in this ten year long epic fight was a four day long trial to determine the amount of attorneys’ fees that should be awarded to Mr. Nikooie and against JPMorgan and ATIF.

A&B’s Peter E. Berlowe represented Mr. Nikooie in the original trial on the merits, which was heard in 2010 before Gil Freeman in Miami-Dade Circuit Court’s Complex Commercial Division. Judge Freeman’s judgment in the case was appealed to the Third District Court of Appeal. In 2014, the appellate court, three years after oral argument, split Mr. Nikooie’s mortgage into two parts based upon equitable subrogation grounds. However, after the appeal, Mr. Nikooie’s mortgage was deemed to be in first position on the property.

On remand, Judge Thornton, now presiding over the Complex Commercial Division, referred the attorneys’ fees trial to Special Magistrate Retired Chief Judge Joseph P. Farina (the “Fee Trial”). Mr. Nikooie was only represented by A&B partners Eric Assouline and Peter Berlowe. JPMorgan and ATIF, working together, were represented by legal giants Gray Robinson, Carlton Fields, Lerman & Whitebook, and Ballaga & Freeman.

Through the Fee Trial, A&B advised that although their case was initially handled on an hourly basis, when the client’s balance grew to a point where he could not keep up with JPMorgan and ATIF’s relentless onslaught, the A&B was prepared to withdraw from the case. A&B ultimately agreed to represent Mr. Nikooie on a partial contingency basis and expended over 3,500 hours on the case. The appeal was handled with co-counsel Erik Scharf on a full contingency basis. Mr. Nikooie sought to have all of the reasonable attorneys’ fees awarded to him and placed on his first position mortgage. Mr. Nikooie also sought a contingency fee multiplier as to any fees that were handled on a contingent basis.

At the Fee Trial, JPMorgan and ATIF argued that Mr. Nikooie’s attorneys’ fees should be split into two parts, as was done by the appellate court with the mortgage. JPMorgan and ATIF also argued that Mr. Nikooie should not be granted a contingency fee multiplier. Judge Farina heard testimony from the attorneys in the case and from expert witnesses Glen Waldman and David Friedman regarding the reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees sought.

Judge Farina issued a twenty-one (21) page Report and Recommendation and awarded Mr. Nikooie all of his attorneys’ fees and costs, plus a 2.25 contingency fee multiplier, totaling $1,497,913.43, and agreed with Mr. Nikooie that the fee award should all be placed in first position with the first part of Mr. Nikooie’s split mortgage. This trial, which culminated ten years of litigation, was instrumental in bringing the parties to an amicable resolution.

Case style: Washington Mutual v. Gabriel Martin, P.A., et al., Case No. 07-01168 CA 40, Miami-Dade Circuit Court

  1. Name of client: Akbar Nikooie, Telephone: 305-235-8116
  2. Lead partners: Peter E. Berlowe and Eric N. Assouline, of Assouline & Berlowe, P.A.
  3. Opposing counsel: Leonard C. Atkins, of Ballaga & Freeman; Carlos D. Lerman, of Lerman & Whitebook; Marty J. Solomon, or Carlton Fields; and, Roland E. Schwartz, of Gray Robinson.

Case No. 2: Who Says You Cannot File a Lis Pendens for Unpaid Attorneys’ Fees?

A&B represented the personal representative of deceased attorney James Keegan. When Keegan died he had a very large receivable due to his firm for defending a client, Barbara Callado, and her family, on over twenty-five different mortgage foreclosure cases filed across the State of Florida on Callado’s real estate properties.

A&B filed suit on behalf of the estate and filed notices of lis pendens (“LPs”) for the particular balances due on the properties Keegan defended from foreclosure actions on behalf of Callado. Ordinarily, LPs are only filed based on a recorded instrument or a fraudulent transaction that involves tracing the funds to the property involved. Callado’s attorney moved to dissolve the LPs and argued that an attorney cannot obtain LPs without having such a right in their retainer agreement, i.e. a charging lien. In response, A&B argued that Keegan had benefited Callado and the property by providing the foreclosure defense services, no different than a material man provides a benefit under the construction lien statute. A&B argued that there was a “fair nexus” between Keegan’s legal fees generated protecting Callado’s properties from foreclosure and the properties themselves.

Judge Rodney Smith, the soon to be new federal judicial appointment by the President for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, denied Callado’s motion to dissolve the LPs, and Callado appealed. Miami’s Third District Court of Appeal affirmed Judge Smith’s order denying the motion to dissolve the LPs.

With little precedent on this issue, attorneys may now be able to secure payment on their unpaid legal fees through an LP on real property based on their work saving the property from foreclosure, or some other benefit to the property. The hard work establishing this previously unrecognized position was helpful in bringing a resolution to this dispute.

Case style: Arianne E. Keegan, as personal representative of the estate of James D. Keegan v. Barbara Callado, et al. – Lower Case No.: 15-010712-CA-01; Appeal Case No.: 3D17-0302

  1. Name of client: Arianne Elisabeth Keegan c/o Stuart Gitlitz, personal attorney for Ms. Keegan
  2. Lead partner: Eric N. Assouline, of Assouline & Berlowe, P.A.
  3. Opposing counsel: Gary M. Murphree and Brandy Abreu, AM Law

Case No. 3: Vacation of $2.3 Million Dollar Judgment and Quashing of Service for Non-Compliance with the Hague Convention.

Assouline and Berlowe, P.A. obtained the vacation of a $2.3 million dollar default judgment and a charging order on client’s membership interest in a Florida LLC, quashing of substitute service, and ultimately, the Plaintiff’s abandonment of its case against firm client, Andrés Alvarez Fonseca. Local international dispute resolution firm GST LLP (“GST”) represented Plaintiff WF Worldwide Group Mexico Financiamiento y Colocación de Equipo (“WF Worldwide”) and obtained the 2.3 million dollar default judgment that was ultimately vacated.

When Mr. Alvarez Fonseca, a Mexican businessman with real estate holdings in Miami, first approached the firm, he had just learned of the case against him and the resulting default judgment. Upon consultation with Mr. Alvarez Fonseca, the firm took swift and aggressive action that resulted in a significant victory for the client.

Upon investigating the lawsuit, A&B learned that Plaintiff WF Worldwide had filed the case on September 9, 2016. Plaintiff had then unsuccessfully attempted to serve Mr. Fonseca, a Mexican National residing in Mexico, in Miami and Mexico under the Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters (the “Hague Convention” or the “Hague”). Upon its unsuccessful service attempts, Plaintiff sought substitute service through the Florida Secretary of State. Plaintiff submitted an affidavit of substitute service with the Court and subsequently obtained a default judgment in the amount of 2.3 million dollars against Mr. Fonseca.

A&B first filed Defendant Andrés Ricardo Alvarez Fonseca’s Motion to Quash Service of Process and Motion to Vacate Default Final Judgment (“Motion to Quash and Vacate Judgment”). Therein, A&B argued that Plaintiff’s substitute service was defective, primarily, because compliance with the Hague is mandatory where there is an occasion to transmit judicial documents for service abroad and Plaintiff had failed to comply with the Hague by prematurely seeking default judgment in contravention thereof.

While A&B’s Motion to Quash and Vacate Judgment was pending, Plaintiff moved forward with its collection efforts. During this time, Plaintiff obtained a charging order against Mr. Fonseca’s interest in a LLC, which held real property in Miami. A&B filed a Notice of Appeal on the Charging Order.

Honorable Judge Eric Hendon who presided over the case heard the Motion to Quash and Vacate Judgment, agreed with A&B’s argument, and ordered the substitute service quashed and the subsequent default judgment and charging order vacated.

After agreeing to accept service on behalf of its client, A&B cemented its victory by filing a strong Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction or Forum Non Conveniens and in the Alternative to Compel Arbitration (“Motion to Dismiss or Compel Arbitration.”). The Motion to Dismiss or Compel Arbitration was the last filing in the case, as Plaintiff abandoned its prosecution of the matter. The case has since been closed.

Case style: WF Worldwide Group Mexico Financiamiento y Colocación de Equipo, S de R.L. v. Andrés Ricardo Alvarez Fonseca; Case No.: 2016-023579

  1. Name of client: Andrés Alvarez Fonseca
  2. Lead partner: Daniel E. Vielleville and Peter E. Berlowe of Assouline & Berlowe, P.A.
  3. Opposing counsel: Quinn Smith, Katherine Sanoja and Derek Womack of GST LLP

Although Assouline & Berlowe has other departments, the litigation department was built through the backbone of the firm’s founders, litigators Eric Assouline and Peter E. Berlowe. Assouline & Berlowe litigation attorneys have regularly had to go up against some of the top attorneys and firms in South Florida in battles against much better funded adversaries. Never deterred, the firm has pressed on, often against the odds, in order to zealously represent their client’s interest. Eric and Peter have steadfastly trained their associates to work with the same ethic and have only brought in partners with the same mindset. In no year in the past has this been more evident than in 2017, when the firm’s resolve was truly tested.

Founded in 2003, Eric and Peter obtained their litigation training as associates working with some the top lawyers in their fields at the international powerhouse, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP. At Weil, Eric and Peter were trained to accept nothing short of excellence in their work product and this training was instrumental in building the firm’s culture.

The firm’s culture is, and always has been since it was formed, to obtain the absolute best result for its clients, while thinking outside of the box and being ready to keep fighting for the client even when it may not be economically beneficial to the firm.

Intellectual Property litigation department:

1. Filed 10 patent infringement lawsuits in the Southern District of Florida ranging from technology for breakaway safety vests to secured automated notification systems. The cases that were filed by the firm are:17-cv-80529 – Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC v. TJX COS, Inc.; 17-cv-80512 – Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc.;  17-cv-80511 – Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC v. Balsam Brands, Inc.; 17-cv-80385 – Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC v. Gemvara, Inc.; 17-cv-80259 – Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC v. Batteries Online, Inc.  Opposing counsel includes: Bob Lee, Esq. of Alston & Bird LLP; Neil McNabnay Esq. of Fish & Richardson; David Finkelson, Esq. of McGuire Woods, Eleanor Barnet, Esq of Heller Waldman.

2. Resolved various patent infringement and declaratory judgment cases filed in Ed. TX, N.D. Iowa, and N.D. Indiana; Peter A. Koziol of Assouline & Berlowe was the lead partner on the Triple7Vaping.Com, LLC case, as he replaced Jerold Schneider (of Schneider Rothman IP Law Group) who at the time was 2017’s Florida Bar Intellectual Property Law Certification Committee chair. Opposing counsel was:Ms. Ranieri’s co-counsel were: David Conrad, Esq. and Ricardo Bonilla Esq. of Fish and Richardson (Dallas, Texas); Mathew S. Sarelson Esq. of Kaplan Young & Moll Parron (Miami)  The main contact person for the Intellectual Property litigation department is Peter A. Koziol, Esq., pak@assoulineberlowe.com – Telephone: 561-361-6566.

3. Served as lead counsel in a highly publicized action filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation against the nation’s allegedly most “prolific’ patent licensing entity (according to the EFF), Triple7Vaping.Com, LLC et al v. Shipping & Transit LLC, S.D. Fla. Case No.: 16-cv-80855, and Case No. 17-1066 (Fed. Cir. 2017).

4. Led litigation and/or licensing negotiations in over 200 patent infringement matters (some pre-suit) throughout the United States in 2017 alone (approximately 10% being filed in various district courts throughout the country);  According to Justia, this accounts for approximately 15% of the total patent litigation new cases filed in the Southern District of Florida for 2017.

  • 17-cv-80262 – Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC v. BTO Sports, Inc.; 17-cv-80261 – Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC v. Ellison Systems, Inc. d/b/a Shoplet.com; and
  • 17-cv-80510 – Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC v. C & A Marketing, Inc.;
  • 17-cv-80528 – Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC v. Dailylook, Inc.;
  • 17-cv-80914 – Safety Supply Corporation v. Abel Unlimited, Inc.

Upcoming matters in Intellectual Property litigation department:

  • Multiple trademark infringement actions for internationally acclaimed restaurant in Miami against misappropriators in New York and Georgia; and
  • Representation of game changing pharmaceutical benefit company against deceptive and tarnishing use of its name against a company accused of an organized enterprise pattern of “feedback extortion.”
  • Representation of foreign manufacturer of exercise equipment against rouge distributor that misappropriated its trademarks, merchandise and trade secrets;

In 2017, due to its litigation strength, the firm was able to resolve many matters for clients without filing suit. The firm helped it clients manage large portfolios of IP assets, including patent portfolios under development and used these assets to foster joint ventures, licensing and cross licensing agreements. The firm’s clients were able to use funding generated by licensing for further research and development of new technologies. However, when the clients’ intellectual property was misappropriated and the parties were unable to resolve their disputes amicably, the firm represented its clients in Court over what were often highly contested positions.

Peter A. Koziol chairs the Firm’s IP litigation department, which also includes Peter E. Berlowe, Eric N. Assouline, and Greg M. Popowitz. The firm credits the IP litigation department’s success with its client’s favorable positions, its members, and the additional support that it receives from the firm’s staff and other attorneys who are either seasoned litigators with experience in business, trade secrets and anti-trust law, or Florida Board Certified in Intellectual Property Law like partners Ellen M. Leibovitch and Loren D. Pearson.

It is Assouline & Berlowe’s experience that although IP litigation is generally a specialty practice, various litigation strategies require input from experts in other practice areas to obtain the best results possible for the client. Unique to Assouline & Berlowe is the law firm’s dedication to its current and past clients and the sophistication and experience of its attorneys which all share a strong focus and team approach to promoting business, commerce and technological innovation.

This included, for example the firm being retained in 2017 to defend an inventor funded company, Shipping and Transit, LLC (“S&T”) in a highly publicized dispute filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”). The EFF, which openly advocates for the abolition of software patents and is funded by variously similarly minded organizations (see, e.g. https://www.eff.org/thanks), sought to invalidate U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,415,207, 6,763,299, 6,904,359, and 7,400,970, and accused S&T of violating Maryland Law. The Order of Dismissal is attached and also available at: https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/doc1/051117870855?caseid=485292&de_seq_num=337.

For questions about Assouline & Berlowe PA and any of its 2017 achievements, please contact Eric Assouline, Esq., co-founder and Litigation Department Chair.

ASSOULINE & BERLOWE, P.A.

213 East Sheridan Street, Suite 3

Dania Beach, Florida  33004

Main: 954.929.1899

Fax: 954.922.6662

Email: ENA@assoulineberlowe.com

http://www.assoulineberlowe.com/

Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, Creditors’ Rights & Bankruptcy, Business Litigation, Corporate & Finance, Real Estate, International Law

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Bankruptcy, Business Litigation, commercial litigation, Corporate Law, Intellectual Property, International, IP Litigation, Labor & Employment, Litigation, Real Estate

ASU CARES – Reading to the Kids – A Great Way to Give Back and to be Inspired

Jack&JillReadingGroup

Arizona State University alumni volunteers pictured, in back row from Right to Left: Stephanie Silverman House, of Goodman Jewish Family Services; Eric N. Assouline, Esq., of Assouline & Berlowe, P.A.; Gregory Haile, Esq., General Counsel and Vice President of Public Affairs, at Broward College; and, Chae Haile, President and Grant Writer at Funded

On Friday, March 2, 2018, Litigation Partner Eric Assouline, of Assouline & Berlowe, through his alumni’s program ASU Cares, and Arizona State University, had the great pleasure of reading Dr. Seuss books to a kindergarten class at Jack & Jill Children’s Center, in Fort Lauderdale.

I have driven past Jack & Jill for years and never knew about the magic that is going on inside.

To start, every Friday, the first thing that the kids do is of course, say the pledge of allegiance.  Very nice.  Then, God Bless America.  Very nice.  I like that.

Then, the fun starts, time to turn up the music and start DANCING!!!

Dancing at Jack & Jill

What a better way to start off a Friday, than dancing!  It puts everyone in such a great mood!

Then the four volunteers from Arizona State University each started reading Dr. Seuss books to the kids.  The kids seemed to really like having guests in their classrooms reading to them.  It is was so nice to be around all these beautiful children.  Being surrounded by innocence reminds us how precious our children are, especially at this fragile time in our Broward County community still reeling from recent tragic events.

20180305_084611-1.jpg

Eric N. Assouline reading “Oh the Places You’ll Go” and getting a good laugh at the line “Scare you Right out of Your Pants!”

We all took a tour of the facilities and saw their playground, vegetable garden (that they use to make meals at the facility), and parent media center to help parents continue to improve their financial positions.

What an eye opening experience.  It was a truly great way to start the end of the week.

Thank you Arizona State University Alumni Association for making this happen, Jack & Jill Children’s Center for inviting us into your wonderful and impactful facility, and Happy 114th Birthday Dr. Seuss!

Eric N. Assouline, Esq.

Litigation Partner

ASSOULINE & BERLOWE, P.A.

213 East Sheridan Street, Suite 3

Dania Beach, Florida  33004

Main: 954.929.1899

Fax: 954.922.6662

http://www.assoulineberlowe.com/

Intellectual PropertyLabor & EmploymentCreditors’ Rights & BankruptcyBusiness LitigationCorporate & FinanceReal EstateInternational Law

Miami • Ft. Lauderdale • Boca Raton

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Bankruptcy, Business Litigation, commercial litigation, Environmental Law, Florida Bar, Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, Real Estate

When You Go to Court, all that Matters is “THE LAW” (and Reality)

.

Clients often ask attorneys, “what are my chances of winning?”  It sounds like a reasonable question.  But what clients do not seem to understand is that there is “the law” and there is “reality.”  All a good lawyer can tell you is: here is what I think is good about your case and here is what I see as the weaknesses, and here is the law “as I see it”.   Huh?

I was preparing for a hearing in Broward Circuit Court, on an Order to Show Cause why the other party’s entire case against my client and several others should not be dismissed.  I had case law precedent from both the Supreme Court of Florida and the District Court that binds the Judge hearing the case to support my client’s position.  I provided a copy of these cases to opposing counsel as we waited for our turn.

Before our case was heard, opposing counsel came over to me and advised that he agreed to dismiss my client as defendant from the case (leaving other defendants still in the case).  I thought this was great news, because the client would be very happy.

I still had to wait my turn for the hearing, because I wanted to make sure that the Judge’s order clearly reflected that my client was now out of the case.

I waited and waited and then I heard the calendar begin on the next round of hearings.  I asked the Clerk what happened since my case from the earlier round had still not been called.  The Clerk advised that I should notify the Judge that my case was not yet called.  the Judge asked me for the name of the case and I told him.  The Judge then blurted out “I find that cause was shown why the case should not be dismissed.”  As I said, luckily, opposing counsel and I had already agreed that my client was being dismissed from the case.  Opposing counsel so notified the Judge and he was ok with the dismissal of my client.

But what would have happened if we did not work it out?  What would have happened if I did not give opposing counsel a copy of the cases that supported our position?  Instead of going into the hearing with “the law on my side”, I would be going into this hearing with a Judge who had already made up his mind.  Perhaps I could have changed the Judge’s mind.  But I cannot count on that.

Instead, my client would be stuck in this case for who knows how long.  Could we appeal the Judge’s finding of cause to not dismiss the case, maybe.  Courts of appeal do not let you appeal every ruling as soon as it is made.  We could try, but it is likely it would not be heard until the case is over.

Maybe we would win the case in the end.  But maybe not.  And, if we did not win, could we appeal and argue that that the plaintiff’s case should have been dismissed at the Order to Show stage.  Probably.  Would we get the entire proceeding thrown out for failing to follow the correct procedure, maybe.

So many “maybes”.  Hmmm.  Sounds like there is “the law” and there is “reality”. 

Eric N. Assouline, Esq., Litigation Partner, Assouline & Berlowe, P.A.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Arbitration, Bankruptcy, Business Litigation, commercial litigation, Corporate Law, Intellectual Property, International Arbitration, IP Litigation, Labor & Employment

Attorneys: Thanks-for-Giving Back to the Community

Legal Aid Picture of Litigation Attorney Eric N. Assouline

Happy Birthday Eric N. Assouline, and thank you for your Pro Bono work at the Legal Aid Service of Broward County!

At a time when the front page article of the Daily Business Review is reporting on an $18M legal fee being imposed upon a public company for unnecessarily fighting about every legal issue in a drawn out commercial dispute, and lead counsel’s normal hourly rate of $1,200 an hour being cut down to $675 an hour by a Federal Magistrate to be more in line with prevailing community rates, it is very humbling to discuss “real life” legal problems ordinary people deal with every day.   

I spent part of my 49th Birthday at the Legal Aid Service of Broward County’s offices in Fort Lauderdale speaking to individuals who called Legal Aid for assistance with their legal problems.

I learned long ago, from my former boss Hank Adorno, who taught all the associates at Adorno & Zeder, that it was the culture of the firm to give back to the community.  Going back to the Adorno days, we were paid by the firm to help those that were less fortunate, including reading to elementary school children and participating in Hands On Miami. 

Keeping up with that tradition, Litigation Partner Eric Assouline is seen here speaking to a group of young men and women about how hard work pays off.  Attorney Assouline also received a FLITE Program framed certificate as a thank you for his time.

FLITE Photo

Giving back time to the community has been part of the culture at Assouline & Berlowe.  As mentioned on the Community Service page of the Firm’s website:  The Firm has been involved in giving back to the community, in the form of time, money, and energy in order to support those who are less fortunate as well as in support of other important causes.

Examples of how the firm has been involved in philanthropic commitments are many. As early as in 2004, when the Firm was just a year old, the Firm sponsored a mayoral debate for Miami-Dade County.

In 2005, the Firm sponsored the Beauty and the Best Fund Raising Program for the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.

00227481

In 2006, the Firm sponsored Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF) Walk-a-Thon in Sunrise, Florida.  In 2014, the firm again returned to support JDRF when the Firm sponsored a charity golf tournament in support of JDRF.

In 2008, during the economic crises, as the headlines were filled with news about Americans losing their jobs, the Firm did not feel it appropriate to have a year end holiday “party” for its staff.  Instead of celebrating another successful year, the Firm made a donation to the Joe DiMaggio Children’s Hospital for the support, care and treatment of children at Joe DiMaggio Children’s Hospital at Memorial Regional Hospital in Hollywood, Florida.

The donation is commemorated by an inscribed brick to be placed next to the statute of Yankee Clipper, Joe DiMaggio at the hospital.

00227479

Joe DiMaggio Paver

Brick Paver at the Joe DiMaggio Children’s Hospital, in Hollywood, Florida

 

In Miami, the Firm donated to the Miami Children’s Hospital, and was recognized with another inscribed brick at the Fountain.

The Firm has also been involved in several directorships for non-profit organizations. For example, Eric Assouline serves as a director for both the B’Nai Brith Justice Unit and Jewish National Fund. Ellen Leibovitch is a director with the South Palm Beach County Bar Association. Mr. Assouline and Ms. Leibovitch have also been involved in supporting the Florida Bar as members of the Florida Bar Grievance Committees in Broward and Palm Beach counties.

On this Thanksgiving Holiday, on behalf of my firm and all those attorneys that Give Back to the community, I want to say Thank you.

Happy Holidays.

Eric N. Assouline, Esq.

Managing Partner, Assouline & Berlowe, P.A.

Leave a comment

Filed under Arbitration, Bankruptcy, Business Litigation, commercial litigation, Corporate Law, International, Labor & Employment, Real Estate, Uncategorized

Florida Judgment Interest Rate Increase to 5.35%, sort of.

Crowdfunding

Hamilton – Assouline & Berlowe – Business Law Firm – joint tax disclosure by US and Swiss governme

Florida has a very interesting way to keep track of the interest rate of a Florida judgment.  Unlike the old system that was in place, Florida requires a judgment holder to compute the interest rate of their judgment by the quarter of the year.  The interest rate is determined by Florida’s Chief Financial Officer.  So, it is possible that a judgment that is one year old may have more than one interest rate for the past one year period.

After being stuck at 4.75% from October 2011 to March 2016, Florida’s interest rate has been steadily creeping upward.  During the second quarter of 2017, Florida’s judgment interest rate was 5.17%.  Florida’s CFO has just announced that the new applicable interest rate for the third quarter of 2017 is now 5.35%.  Florida’s interest rate is now at its highest in 6 years.

Leave a comment

Filed under Arbitration, Bankruptcy, Business Litigation, commercial litigation, International, Uncategorized

Strategic Considerations for the Bankruptcy Practitioner when Intellectual Property is Involved

20130904_093101-1Assouline & Berlowe Registered Patent Attorney Greg Popowitz will be speaking as part of a panel discussing the interplay between bankruptcy and intellectual property.  The Bankruptcy Section of the Broward Bar Association is hosting the discussion on Wednesday, January 13, 2016 from 12:00-1:30pm.  The lunch is being sponsored by the Bankruptcy Bar Association of the Southern District of Florida (BBA).

To register for the event, click here.  It will be an excellent discussion between bankruptcy attorney John Hutton, patent attorney Allen Bennett, and patent attorney Greg Popowitz.

1 CLE credit is pending.

Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2016

Time: 12:00 – 1:30pm

Location: BCBA Conference Center

Cost:   FREE BCBA Bankruptcy Section Members;

$15 BCBA Member(non-section member)

$25 Non-Member of BCBA

No Charge BCBA Judiciary; Includes Hot Lunch

For questions about Intellectual Property matters, contact  Greg Popowitz below.

ASSOULINE & BERLOWE, P.A.

213 East Sheridan Street, Suite 3

Dania Beach, Florida  33004

Main: 954.929.1899

Fax: 954.922.6662

http://www.assoulineberlowe.com/

Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, Creditors’ Rights & Bankruptcy, Business Litigation, Corporate & Finance, Real Estate, International Law

Miami • Ft. Lauderdale • Boca Raton

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Bankruptcy, Business Litigation, commercial litigation, Corporate Law, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation, Patent Prosecution, Uncategorized