Patent Revived!

If you receive an issued patent, it is a big accomplishment to protect your invention. You succeeded in showing the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that your invention was useful, novel, and non-obvious. Aside from the business implications to monetize the invention covered by the patent, often overlooked are the mandatory payment of maintenance fees at the 3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 year points after issuance of the patent. 

Assouline & Berlowe recently helped a client revive an expired patent for unintentional delay. A big win for the client as he regained his patent rights that were lost. If a patent owner misses the deadline to pay the applicable maintenance fee, there is a six month grace period to pay with added filing fees. After the grace period expires, the patent will become abandoned.  

If the failure to pay the maintenance fee was unintentional, the patent owner can petition the USPTO to reinstate the patent due the unintentional delay. Such petitions are generally looked upon favorably (if unintentional) by the USPTO if filed within two years from the deadline. However, if the petition is filed after two years from the deadline, the USPTO in 2020 updated their rules for proving unintentional delay. 

The USPTO may ask for additional information to assess the circumstances behind the nature of the unintentional delay. The patent owner will have to demonstrate that the entire duration of the delay was unintentional. However, if any portion of the delay was intentional, the delay will not qualify as unintentional and the request will likely be denied.

Given the value of an issued patent, it is important for patent owners to calendar the maintenance fee deadlines upon receipt of the issued patent. Notably, the maintenance fee deadlines are printed on the inside of the patent deed, both electronically and in hard copy. If a patent maintenance fee deadline is missed unintentionally, it is critical to act promptly and engage knowledgeable patent counsel to petition for reinstatement of the abandoned patent.

If you have questions about your patent or Intellectual Property rights, please contact Florida Bar Board Certified Intellectual Property Attorney Greg Popowitz.

Greg M. Popowitz, Esq.

Board Certified in Intellectual Property Law

Registered Patent Attorney

ASSOULINE & BERLOWE, P.A.

Miami Tower

100 SE 2nd Street, Suite 3105

Miami, Florida 33131

Main: 305.567.5576

Fax: 305.567.9343

Email: GMP@assoulineberlowe.com

http://www.assoulineberlowe.com/

LinkedIn  ||  Twitter

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

 

Greg Popowitz Earns IP Board Certification by The Florida Bar

Assouline & Berlowe is proud to announce that Partner and Registered Patent Attorney Greg Popowitz has earned board certification from The Florida Bar in Intellectual Property Law. Greg joins a group of only 140 board-certified Florida lawyers in the Intellectual Property practice area.

According to The Florida Bar, only 7% of eligible Florida attorneys have earned board certification in one or more of the bar’s 27 specialty areas. Board certification recognizes attorneys’ special knowledge, skills, and proficiency in their areas of the law and their professionalism and ethics in practice. Board-certified lawyers must have a minimum of five years in law practice, pass an examination specific to their area of practice, undergo a peer review assessment of their competence and character, and satisfy continuing legal education requirements. Greg joins fellow Assouline & Berlowe partner Ellen Leibovitch, who is board-certified in Labor and Employment Law. 

Greg, who practices in the firm’s Fort Lauderdale office, helps clients protect their inventions, brands, and other creations using patent, trademark, and copyright law. Greg is a Registered Patent Attorney and he helps secure patents and trademarks before the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO), along with work relating to licensing, co-existence agreements, evaluating new inventions, brands, and technology, clearance searches, and litigation. Greg enjoys counseling clients on the various mechanisms available to protect their Intellectual Property, which ultimately adds value to their business.

Greg earned his J.D. from Nova Southeastern University School of Law and his B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech). 

For more information about Intellectual Property issues, please contact Greg M. Popowitz, Esq.

ASSOULINE & BERLOWE, P.A.

213 East Sheridan Street, Suite 3

Dania Beach, Florida  33004

Main: 954.929.1899

Fax: 954.922.6662

Email: GMP@assoulineberlowe.com

http://www.assoulineberlowe.com/

LinkedIn  ||  Twitter

Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, Creditors’ Rights & Bankruptcy, Business Litigation, Corporate & Finance, Real Estate, International Law, Trust & Estates, Probate and Guardianship

BROWARD COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION: Member of the Week – Eric N. Assouline, Esq.

The Broward County Bar Association Featured Assouline & Berlowe Litigation Partner as the “Member of the Week”.

Eric N. Assouline, is a co-founder of Assouline & Berlowe, P.A., a business litigation and transactional boutique law firm.  Eric credits his personal and professional success to hard work, a strong work ethic inspired by his parents, and good Jewish values.

Eric is a first-generation American.  Eric was raised in Queens, New York, by immigrant French Moroccan parents, with few resources.

Started in 2003, Assouline & Berlowe’s main practice areas are pat­ent and intellectual property law; commercial litigation and appeals; real estate; labor and employment; international law and arbitration; creditors’ rights and bankruptcy; and as of 2018 the law firm added an additional practice area – Trust, Estates, and Guardianship.  The firm has three South Florida offices, and has served as counsel of record on many complex cases outside of Florida.

Eric N. Assouline is a litigation partner in the Miami and Ft. Lauderdale offices, and the head of the business litigation practice group.  Eric’s prac­tice focuses on complex business litigation, intellectual property and real estate litigation, bankruptcy and creditors’ rights.  Eric en­joys a complicated business litigation dispute, analyzing the risks and benefits of the strategy to employ, and then implementing the plan.  Eric takes pride in taking a case from inception to conclusion for the client, which often includes trips into the appellate and bankruptcy courts.

As the business world continues its international expansion, Assouline & Berlowe guides its clients through their legal challenges.  As a French speaking attorney, Eric has been hired by many clients from France and they are always shocked at the expense involved in litigating a case in the United States.  Eric does his best to bridge his clients between differing legal environments.  With the assistance of his partner, Daniel Vielleville, who was an attorney in Venezuela before becoming an attorney in the United States, they bridge the gap with the firm’s Latin American clientele.  Corporate Partner Carl Perdue plays a similar role with corporate matters from his extensive experience with complex Middle East corporate finance.

Assouline & Berlowe’s management predicts growth in the areas of technology, real estate, intellectual property, and trust and estate issues.  “We’re more than just another boutique law firm. We take great pride in the high quality legal work that we do every day. I believe our extensive network of attorneys that refer their clients to our firm, including many referrals from former opposing counsel, is a testament to how we honor our craft,” Eric Assouline has been quoted as saying.

In the Beginning

Eric Assouline and Peter Berlowe first served together as mem­bers of the University of Miami Law Review.

After law school, they worked together in the Miami office of Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, where they trained as litigators on nationally recognized cases. While there, Eric Assouline served as the court appointed receiver’s lead litigation attorney charged with recovery actions in a high-profile global Ponzi scheme.

When Assouline & Berlowe first opened its doors 0n February 10, 2003, in Coral Gables, its office was sublet from Peter Berlowe’s father.  Eric has been quoted as saying “Our first office had thick shag carpet, old fash­ioned wood paneling, and had not been renovated in decades. The furnishings were comprised of mis-­matched furniture and left over construction mate­rials that we used to build a new countertop for the receptionist area,” From those humble beginnings, Assouline & Berlowe expanded with an of­fice in Broward in July 2004, and later another office in Boca Raton in 2008.

As part of its flagship intellectual property practice, the firm has two registered patent attorneys, includ­ing Peter Koziol, who is the head of the IP Litigation Group and Greg Popowitz, who has been with the firm for over 5 years.

Ellen Leibovitch, who is board certified in the areas of labor and employment, heads the firm’s Boca Raton office.

Eric Assouline has been quoted as saying that “Through our 10 attorneys we now have several hundred years of collective business law ex­perience, much of it gained in practice at large, presti­gious law firms.”

Eric Assouline has also been quoted as saying: “As the managing partner of the firm, I need to know what everyone is doing. I have an ethical obliga­tion to protect all of the firm’s clients and to be there to pick up the pieces if anything were to happen to any particular attorney at the firm. But I do not tell attor­neys how to do their job. The attorneys at my firm are exceptionally qualified and know their craft. My job is to make it as easy as possible for them to get their work done and keep the firm’s clients satisfied.”

Eric Assouline believes that his firm has the talent and experience to compete with any firm in the area of business law.  “As it re­lates to regional boutique business firms, because we are smaller, we can offer more flexibility without com­promising on service.” Eric stresses the fact that clients regularly interact with the firm’s attorneys through multi-office video conferencing. “This not only gives us what I believe is a significant competitive edge, but it helps keep clients in close contact, which is important to our client relationships.”

Giving Back

As individual professionals and as a firm, the attorneys of Assouline & Berlowe believe in sharing and they have backed that belief from the beginning. “We’ve long been involved in giving back to the community, in time, money and energy, to support numerous worthy causes and those who are less fortunate,” Eric Assouline has been quoted as saying.

Just some examples include: a mayoral debate for Miami-Dade County; a fundraising program for the Cystic Fibrosis Founda­tion; and a charity golf tournament in Boca Raton and a Walk-a-Thon in Sunrise, both in support of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.  “In 2008, as the economy struggled, we did not feel it was appropriate to have a year-end holiday staff party. So, instead we made donations to the Joe DiMaggio Children’s Hospital in Hollywood and to the Miami Children’s Hospital,” Eric Assouline has been quoted as saying.

Eric Assouline currently serves on the board of directors of: the B’nai Brith Justice Unit; the Jewish Na­tional Fund; Hillel of Broward and Palm Beach Counties; the University of Miami Law Alumni Association; and the Florida Alumni of Arizona State University.

Eric Assouline has been a regular guest speaker at St. Thomas Univer­sity School of Law, where his wife, Iris Rogatinsky, is a law pro­fessor.  During his talks, Eric Assouline has mentored law students seeking his advice and insight on the practice of law, and he has conducted lectures on litigation and deposition skills for Pincus Professional Edu­cation. He also regularly volunteers to judge law school moot court and mock trial competitions at the University of Miami and Nova Southeastern Law School.

“I feel fortunate that I have been given this opportunity and I do my best to instill the same strong work ethic and uncompromising moral values upon my children with the help of my amazing wife.” She also worked with both Eric Assouilne him Peter Berlowe at Weil Gotshal & Manges.

Eric Assouline’s rise from humble beginnings to prominence in the legal community has colored his view of the world, the com­munity, and his firm. Eric Assouline and the attorneys of Assouline & Berlowe recognize their fortuity. Eric Assouline has been quoted as saying: “You will not hear me complain about my life. I find it very unbecoming to complain about triv­ial matters. No one is perfect and no situation is perfect forever. I like to say that I don’t look at the glass half full. I am grateful I even have a glass to drink. And as far as I am concerned, my glass always runneth over.”

Eric N. Assouline, Esq.

Business Litigation Partner

ASSOULINE & BERLOWE, P.A.

Miami Tower

100 SE 2^nd St., Suite 3105

Miami, FL 33131

Telephone: 305-567-5576

Email: ena@assoulineberlowe.com

www.assoulineberlowe.com

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

Miami · Ft. Lauderdale · Boca Raton

Florida has Trademarks? Yes, and it was just revised!

On June 7, 2019, Governor DeSantis approved HB 445, a bill that revised the classification system of Florida’s Registration and Protection of Trademarks Act (see Chapter 495 of the Florida Statutes).  The purpose of the revision was to align the Florida trademark classification of goods and services to that of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), which is the federal trademark authority.  The new changes revise most of Florida’s 45 trademark classifications.  A copy of the changes can be found here.

The USPTO breaks up the 45 classes into two groups.  There are 34 classes for products and 11 classes for services.  When applying for a trademark, at the USPTO or in Florida, the owner must select the class or classes where the brand is being used.  For example, if the business uses a brand in the real estate business, then they likely fit in one of the service-based classes.  If the business also brands their real estate business in related apparel, they may also want to apply for a product-based class.  It is important to select these appropriate class and word the description accurately because you will have to submit evidence of your use of the brand in the applied for classes at the beginning or end of the trademark process.

While federal trademark registrations secured with the USPTO are more commonplace, there are reasons to secure a Florida trademark to protect your brand.  For some business owners, their entire business is focused in Florida and does not extend outside the state.  If there are no plans to expand out of Florida in the future, a Florida trademark may be all the business owner needs.  While a federal trademark registration is often litigated in federal court, a Florida trademark owner may have the ability to file an infringement action in Florida state court, which is relatively rare.

There are pros and cons to litigation in federal court compared to state court.  The business owner should assess the cost/benefit of securing  a Florida trademark and/or a federal trademark as they build their trademark portfolio to protect their valuable branding.  Often overlooked, branding is in important part of your business and steps should be taken to protect your brands.  Otherwise, you may have limited options to enforce your rights should someone copy your branding in a related market.

For any questions about trademarks, patents, or copyrights, contact Greg Popowitz.

Greg M. Popowitz, Esq.

Registered Patent Attorney

AV Rated by Martindale-Hubbell

Intellectual Property Litigation

ASSOULINE & BERLOWE, P.A.

213 East Sheridan Street, Suite 3

Dania Beach, Florida  33004

Main: 954.929.1899

Fax: 954.922.6662

Email: GMP@assoulineberlowe.com

http://www.assoulineberlowe.com/

LinkedIn  ||  Twitter

Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, Creditors’ Rights & Bankruptcy, Business Litigation, Corporate & Finance, Real Estate, International Law, Trust & Estates, Probate and Guardianship

SCOTUS: Register Your Copyrights to Sue

 

Artists across the United States that wanted to sue to protect their mental expressions (copyrights) have had to figure out if a copyright registration was required to file a lawsuit, or if simply applying forregistration was enough.   In the Eleventh Circuit, which includes Florida, a plaintiff is required to secure a copyright registration from the U.S. Copyright Office before filing a copyright lawsuit.

On March 4, 2019, in a long-awaited decision, Justice Ginsberg delivered the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com LLC, et al, No. 17-571, 586 U.S. ____ (March 4, 2019).    The question before the Court was whether registration is secured under Title 17 of the Copyright code by simply filing the application, depositing the copies of the work, and required fee, or if registration occurs once the Copyright Office reviews and registers the copyright.  SCOTUS agreed with the Eleventh Circuit and affirmed that “registration occurs, and a copyright claimant may commence an infringement suit, when the Copyright Office registers a copyright.”  SCOTUS also held that a copyright owner can recover damages for infringement that occurred both before and after registration.

The Fourth Estate decision notes the increased time by the Copyright Office in progressing copyright applications.  Registration processing times have steadily increased from 1-2 weeks in 1956 to numerous months today.  Depending on the type of work, it may take a year.  While the delays are largely attributable to staffing and budgetary shortages that Congress could resolve, it is not within the purview of the courts to cure.

While the average pendency of a copyright application has increased significantly, there is an option to secure a copyright registration faster.  When filing a copyright application, the applicant can select to file the application on an expedited basis.  This often results in the Copyright Office, if appropriate, registering the copyright within 1-2 weeks.  One of the reasons to apply on an expedited basis is the representation that litigation is forthcoming.  However, the filing fees for applying on an expedited basis is over 10 times the normal filing fees, which can be quite costly.

Instead of dealing with expedited filing fees, it is in the interest of copyright holders to apply for protection as early as possible.  If the claimant applies for copyright protection within 90 days from publication, the claimant preserves their ability to seek statutory damages and attorneys’ fees in the event of infringement.  It is important that copyright holders routinely speak with an Intellectual Property attorney to review their portfolio and decide the best ways to protect their mental creations.

For any questions about copyrights, trademarks, or patents, contact Greg Popowitz.

Greg M. Popowitz, Esq.

Registered Patent Attorney

AV Rated by Martindale-Hubbell

Intellectual Property Litigation

ASSOULINE & BERLOWE, P.A.

213 East Sheridan Street, Suite 3

Dania Beach, Florida  33004

Main: 954.929.1899

Fax: 954.922.6662

Email: GMP@assoulineberlowe.com

http://www.assoulineberlowe.com/

LinkedIn  ||  Twitter

Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, Creditors’ Rights & Bankruptcy, Business Litigation, Corporate & Finance, Real Estate, International Law, Trust & Estates, Probate and Guardianship

Copyright Law – Supreme Court to Address Recoverable Costs

The Supreme Court of the United States has granted a petition for certiorari in the case styled as Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc. in order to address split between the circuits as to the types of “costs” that may be recovered under the Copyright Act. 

As framed by the briefs in the case, Question Presented by the petitioner is: Whether the Copyright Act’s allowance of “full costs,” 17 U.S.C. § 505, to a prevailing party, is limited to taxable costs under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1821, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 8th and 11th Circuits, have held, or whether the Act also authorizes non-taxable costs, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held.

Currently, there are three (out of twelve) federal circuit courts of appeal which allow certain costs to be recovered.  Those circuits are the First, the Sixth, and the Ninth.  The federal circuit courts of appeal that do not allow recovery of these costs are the eighth and the eleventh (which controls all cases filed in Florida). 

The result of this decision may change the law in the Eleventh Circuit, as to what costs are recoverable under the Copyright Act.

 

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

SCOTUS ALERT: Trademarks and Bankruptcy

On Friday, the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) granted a petition for certiorari in the case called Mission Product v. Tempnology, in order to hear a case involving trademark law and bankruptcy law.  The issue that is to be heard relates to what happens to a trademark license when the owner of the brand files for bankruptcy.

Currently, the different Circuit Courts of Appeal are not all in agreement as to what should happen.  In certain particular Circuit Courts of Appeal, the licensor that files bankruptcy can use a particular bankruptcy code provision, identified as Section 363 under the Bankruptcy Code, in order to cancel the right of a licensee to use the bankrupt company’s trademark.  However, in certain other Circuit Court’s of Appeal, the courts have been allowing the trademark licensee the right to continue using the bankrupt’s trademark.

The issue is as much a question of trademark law as it is bankruptcy law.  Under the Bankruptcy Code, the law allows a bankrupt the right to accept or reject a contract, wherein both sides still have obligations.  This is known as an executory contract.  However, Section 363 contains an exemption for certain forms of intellectual property, but it currently does not include trademarks.

The two most well-recognized opinions where the courts’ position diverge is the Seventh Circuit and the First Circuit, which is where the Mission Product case is pending.  In essence, the Mission Product appellate court has held that courts should not impose upon a bankrupt the obligation to continue to monitor how its trademark was being used, which goes to the essence and policy of bankruptcy law.

Never a dull moment in intellectual property and bankruptcy law.

 

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

The Intersection of IP and Technology

Registered Patent Attorney Greg Popowitz recently filmed a CLE focused on Understanding Intellectual Property (IP) and Attorneys’ use of Technology.  Greg discussed the important distinctions between patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets, along with the key considerations when attempting to secure protection for your IP.

The second part of the course is directed at what attorneys should look out for as they use technology. Greg discusses attorneys using efiling, the need to redact sensitive information, ediscovery, social media and websites, and cloud computing (confidentiality). The CLE goes over relevant portions of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and Florida Rules of Judicial Administration.

To learn more about the CLE and what CLE credits are available in your state, please visit the National Academy of Continuing Legal Education (NACLE) here.  NACLE is seeking technology credit in Florida as the new technology CLE requirement starts January 1 2017.

For any questions about patents, trademarks, and copyrights, or IP generally, please contact Greg Popowitz below.

Greg M. Popowitz, Esq.

Registered Patent Attorney

AV Rated by Martindale-Hubbell

Intellectual Property Litigation

ASSOULINE & BERLOWE, P.A.

213 East Sheridan Street, Suite 3

Dania Beach, Florida  33004

Main: 954.929.1899

Fax: 954.922.6662

Email: GMP@assoulineberlowe.com

http://www.assoulineberlowe.com/

LinkedIn  ||  Twitter

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

Miami • Ft. Lauderdale • Boca Raton

 

 

 

Protect Your Tech: Florida Bar CLE Edition

 

Earlier this month, I had the distinct pleasure to present at the Florida Bar Basic Technology CLE about how businesses, and their lawyers, can protect technology using Intellectual Property.  This was the first time a Florida Bar Basic CLE was focused on technology.  To keep the CLE interactive, the presentations included live tweeting using the #CLEHistory hashtag, interactive polls with the audience, and post presentation video outtakes.  The interactive nature of the CLE was perfect for a technology focused CLE.

My portion of the CLE focused on how technology is used protect intellectual property, with the focus on patents.  There are several options when determining how to use patent law to protect technology, from design patents to provisional and non-provisional utility patents.  There are key timetables and strategic considerations to assess when protecting your technology, both before and after the technology is finalized.

One of the interactive questions, pictured below,  I posted to the live audience was whether someone could put “patent pending” on a product as soon as a patent application was filed.  The question was posted during my presentation and the audience texted their results to get an immediate response to the question.  36% of the audience correctly chose the right answer of A – Yes.  Meaning you can put patent pending on a product as soon as you file a patent application.  However, the application must remain active, i.e. not abandoned, to continue marking the product as “patent pending.”  Notably, 44% of the audience thought patent pending depended on what type of patent application was filed.  This is not accurate as it does not matter if the patent application is design, provisional, or non-provisional.

There are many misconceptions about patent law and it is important to consult with a registered patent attorney to review your technology and plan to maximize your protection.  It was an honor to speak at the first Florida Bar Basic Technology CLE and I enjoyed the interactive nature of the CLE.  Check the Florida Bar CLE page as the Technology CLE will be available for download in the near future.

For questions about Intellectual Property matters involving Technology, 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

PANAMA PAPERS – Subpoena Issued to Mossack Fonseca Regarding Daddy Yankee Assets

Miami Attorneys Issued a Subpoena to Mossack Fonseca, of the Panama Papers, regarding Daddy Yankee Assets

4/12/16- Eric Assouline, Daniel Vielleville, and Peter Berlowe, with ASSOULINE & BERLOWE, P.A., Miami – Picture from Daily Business Review Article 4-14-2016 By AM Holt

 Keeping the whereabouts of your assets is ok, except when . . .

This is a burning question that has surfaced in light of the Panama Papers.  When is it ok to have off shore accounts?  The simple answer is when you do not owe anyone any money and after you have paid all the taxes that are due on the assets that you wish to keep secret.   See recent article by Real Estate and Corporate Law Partner David Blattner: Have the Panama Papers Taught Us Anything We Didn’t Already Know?

You cannot maintain a secret web of companies, with the intention of hiding this information from creditors to whom you owe money.  That is illegal.

You cannot transfer assets that would be subject to execution by a creditor to an off shore, or out of state company, in order to not pay debts that you owe.  That is illegal.

This is the basis of the investigation that has been opened up as to all the public figures mentioned in the Panama Papers.  Including noted celebrity Daddy Yankee.

In today’s Daily Business Review, South Florida’s prominent daily business paper, one of the headline stories regards Assouline & Berlowe, P.A.’s subpoena issued to Mossack Fonseca, the Panamanian law firm that has gained notoriety for opening off shore accounts for high profile individuals all over the world.

Through their subpoena, Assouline & Berlowe, on behalf of their clients, creditors of Daddy Yankee, are seeking financial information from Mossack Fonseca as to Daddy Yankee’s assets and financial affairs.

A link to the complete article is: http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/home/id=1202754983211/Panama-Papers-Reports-Show-Daddy-Yankee-Might-Have-a-Way-to-Pay-Millions-Owed?mcode=1202617073880&curindex=2

For more information regarding this case, please contact Daniel E. Vielleville, Peter E. Berlowe, or Eric N. Assouline.

/12/16- Eric Assouline, Daniel Vielleville, and Peter Berlowe, with ASSOULINE & BERLOWE, P.A., Miami – Photo by Daily Business Review Photographer AM Holt