Polenberg, Cooper, Saunders, & Riesberg, PL

Attorney Peter E. Shapiro Joins Polenberg Cooper As Of Counsel

avi@netprofession.com — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 18:43:39 +0000

Shapiro Brings Wealth of Experience in Bankruptcy and Creditor’s Rights

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. – March x, 2013 – Peter E. Shapiro, a corporate attorney who focuses on bankruptcy and creditor’s rights, has joined Polenberg, Cooper, Saunders, & Riesberg, PL, as of counsel. He was previously a partner in the Fort Lauderdale office of Arnstein & Lehr.

With 25 years of experience, Shapiro’s diverse practice includes commercial transactions, business restructuring, bankruptcy, creditors’ rights, finance and real estate. His clients are comprised of lenders, investors, real estate owners and landlords, private companies engaged in a wide variety of industries, family businesses, investors, entrepreneurs and individuals. He has handled court appointed fiduciaries including receivers in foreclosure proceedings, trustees in bankruptcy proceedings and assignees in assignment for the benefit of creditor’s proceedings.

Shapiro has represented companies that have sought protection and successfully emerged from Chapter 11 reorganization cases. He has represented creditors in assisting with the recovery of collateral, maximizing recoveries, and, when parties go to litigation, minimized their exposure through development of successful tactical approaches and negotiation often times through mediation.

Shapiro has handled contested matters and adversary proceedings, including fraudulent conveyance and preferential payment actions, claims objections, proceedings involving relief from the automatic stay, cash collateral proceedings and debtor in possession financings. He has handled all aspects (negotiations, purchase and sale agreements, bidding procedures, court approval process) for purchasers and sellers in numerous deals involving transactions approved under Section 363 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

Shapiro earned a juris doctor from Syracuse University College of Law. He earned a bachelor’s of science degree in business administration with concentrations in accounting and management information systems from Boston University School of Management. He is admitted to practice law in Florida and New York.

Shapiro is the Executive Vice President of the Board of Trustees of Temple Dor Dorim where he has served since 2003. He was honored by Broward County Sheriff’s Office and the City of Weston with the Good Samaritan Award for assisting with the rescue of the driver of a vehicle that drove into a lake.

Polenberg, Cooper, Saunders, & Riesberg, PL, represents clients with legal matters concerning corporations, insurance, receiverships, construction, developers, and commercial tenants. These disputes include high-stakes breach of contract, fraud, tortious interference, unfair competition and other business tort claims, and litigation brought under numerous business statutes. For more information visit: www.polenbergcooper.com.

Attorney Morgan P. Theodore Joins Polenberg Cooper

avi@netprofession.com — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 18:40:17 +0000

Theodore to Help Expand Firm’s Commercial Litigation

and Intellectual Property Law Practices

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. – March x, 2013 – Polenberg, Cooper, Saunders, & Riesberg, PL, is pleased to announce that Morgan P. Theodore has joined the firm as an attorney focusing on commercial litigation involving complex business issues, and Intellectual Property law. Before joining the firm, Theodore worked at John B. Ostrow, P.A., practicing in the areas of Intellectual Property Law and Commercial Litigation.

Theodore earned a juris doctor, with honors, from the University of Miami School of Law. During law school she worked in the University of Miami Center for Ethics and Public Service, Health and Elder law Clinic, where she offered community legal services in the areas of Immigration, Probate and Public Benefits. Additionally, Theodore worked as a summer law clerk for the Honorable James Lawrence King, Southern District of Florida.

Theodore is a member of the Florida Bar and has also been admitted to practice before the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida. In addition, she earned a bachelor of science degree in marketing management, with honors, from Tulane University’s Freeman School of Business.

Theodore is a member of the American Bar Association, Young Lawyers Division and the Dade County Bar Association. She is an active participant with the Intellectual Property Law Committee of the Dade County Bar Association. Theodore is also a Board Member of the Young Philanthropists for UM Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center and a Development Committee Member for UM Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center. Since 2006 Theodore has sat on the committees for several significant fundraising events at the Cancer Center including “Strike Out Cancer,” “Design for a Cure,” and the “Sylvester Gala.”

Keep a Wary Eye in Court or Risk Waiving the Right to Arbitrate.

jon@pcpalaw.com — Fri, 13 Jul 2012 20:25:44 +0000

In 4 of the 5 Florida District Courts of Appeal, parties to an arbitration agreement may request a court grant interim measures to maintain the status quo pending the conclusion of arbitration without waving the right to arbitrate. See, e.g., Korn v. Ambassador Homes, Inc., 546 So. 2d 756, 757 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). For instance, a party may seek a temporary injunction from a court to maintain the status quo.

But in the 4th District Court of Appeal, a party may waive contractual arbitration rights by seeking an injunction for matters covered by arbitration agreement (i.e., before the parties have arbitrated those matters), unless the arbitration agreement confers the parties with the right to seek such an injunction. See Rath v. Network Marketing, L.C., 790 So. 2d 461, 465-466 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). In Rath, the party waived the right to arbitrate by seeking a court order granting interim injunctive relief pending arbitration in order to preserve the status quo because the parties’ agreement did not contemplate such relief judicial relief.

U.S. Discovery Is Available to Parties Involved in International Arbitrations.

jon@pcpalaw.com — Sat, 07 Jul 2012 17:17:26 +0000

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has decided, as an issue of first impression, a foreign arbitration falls within the scope of 28 U.S.C. § 1782, and thereby provides arbitrating parties with access to full discovery. Relying on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 124 S.Ct. 2466, 159 L.Ed.2d 355 (2004), the 11th Circuit held the breadth of the statutory term “tribunal” ensured assistance extends not only to parties involved in proceedings before conventional courts, but also to parties involved in quasi-judicial proceedings, which include arbitral tribunals. Not addressed by the 11th Circuit is that parties involved in international arbitrations may now obtain far more discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 than parties involved in domestic arbitrations.

In re Consorcio Ecuatoriano de Telecomunicaciones S.A. v. JAS Forwarding (USA), Inc., Case No. 11-12897, 2012 WL 2369166, at *5-8 (11th Cir. Jun. 25, 2012)

A Cautionary Tale: Concerted Conduct Allegations May Trigger Arbitration with Nonsignatories.

jon@pcpalaw.com — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 14:49:35 +0000

On appeal, the court compelled arbitration becuase the plaintiff alleged the defendants had engaged in concerted conduct causing the plaintiff the harm. The court reasoned, although a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement may not compel a signatory to submit to arbitration, there is an exception to the rule when the signatory to the arbitration agreement alleges substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct by both the non-signatory and one or more signatories. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged concerted conduct between parties and non-parties to the arbitration agreement. Central to all claims was the allegation the defendants acted together, and intentionally “engaged in a pattern of fraud and deceit” to conceal information. The plaintiff alleged the defendants acts “constituted a concerted effort to defraud.”

Lash & Goldberg LLP v. Clarke, 37 Fla. L. Weekly D1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)

A Collateral Agreement Is Not a “Collateral Agreement” — the Parties Must Arbitrate.

jon@pcpalaw.com — Tue, 01 May 2012 19:08:56 +0000

The appellate court found contracting parties intended to resolve disputes in arbitration where they executed one contract with an agreement to arbitrate as part of several contracts because the several contracts were part of one transaction when deciding intent to arbitrate. Specifically, the appeallate court held the trial court erred in denying a motion to compel arbitration for claims alleging breach of the promissory note, the foreclosure of security agreement, the collateral assignment of termination payments and economic interests, and breach the guaranty despite the parties agreement to arbitrate existed in only the collateral assignment of termination payments and economic interests contract because the court considered all the agreements together as one contract in interpreting whether the parties agreement to arbitrate disputes related to the other contracts.

MV Ins. Consultants v. NAFH Nat. Bank, Case No. 3D11-898, __ So. 3d __, 2012 WL 1414838 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr. 25, 2012)

E-Commerce Forum Selection Clause Unenforceable Because It Was Too Hard to Find on the Website.

jon@pcpalaw.com — Tue, 01 May 2012 14:37:37 +0000

A forum selection clause in the terms of sale submerged in multiple layers of webpages was not reasonably communicated via e-commerce from the website. The clause was therefore not an enforceable part of the parties’ contract under the state law where the buyer entered into the e-commerce contract. The terms were on a webpage found by clicking an inconspicuous link on the seller’s “About Us” page. The court warned “e-commerce merchants cannot blithely assume that the inclusion of sale terms, listed somewhere on a hyperlinked page on its website, will be deemed part of any contract of sale.” The buyer therefore had no notice of the clause so did not assent to it on the website.

Jerez v. JD Closeouts, LLC, CV-024727-11, 2012 WL 934390 (N.Y. Dist. Ct. Mar. 20, 2012)

Caution: Breach of Settlement Agreement May Require Parties File a New Lawsuit.

jon@pcpalaw.com — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 19:49:48 +0000

A ”Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice” was self-executing, and a provision “that the Court shall reserve jurisdiction to enforce the settlement between the parties pursuant to the terms contained therein” was insufficient to retain jurisdiction. For a district court to retain jurisdiction over a settlement agreement where a stipulation of dismissal, signed by all parties who have appeared, has been filed, either (1) the court must issue an order retaining jurisdiction prior to the filing of the stipulation, or (2) the parties must condition effectiveness of the stipulation on the court’s entry of an order retaining jurisdiction.