My Portfolio (0) A Client-Centered Commitment to Excellence

Innovative Advocacy for Our Clients.

Complex Commercial Litigation

Our clients have varied financial business interests throughout the southeastern United States. They have found that one of our strengths is the ability to handle the entire spectrum of disputes presented. These complex commercial disputes involve all aspects of commercial and business transactions, ranging from small amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars where the company’s financial future will be determined by the outcome of the case. Our attorneys regularly handle complex commercial cases ranging from basic breach of contract to extremely intricate financial fraud cases. Our representation also involves cases involving disputes arising from mergers and acquisitions, construction, banking, intellectual property, insurance, professional liability, director and officer liability and business torts including breach of fiduciary duty.

 

 

 

 

Recent News

Florida Supreme Court Declines to Adopt Florida Legislature’s Daubert Amendment
For many years Florida followed the Frye standard for the admissibility of expert testimony based upon new or novel scientific evidence.  See Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).   In 2013, the Florida Legislature, through what has been dubbed the Daubert Amendment, replaced the Frye standard with the Daubert standard.  The Daubert standard stems from the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), which established the federal court standard for expert testimony.  Since then, federal courts have continued to apply the Daubert standard, and 36 states have adopted the Daubert standard.

Read More

October 21, 2013
Motor Vehicle Dealer Bonds: Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal Punts on Attorneys' Fees Issue

Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal recently had the opportunity to provide much needed guidance on the issue of whether a statutory motor vehicle dealer bond caps the surety’s liability for plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees at the penal sum of the bond.  Unfortunately, the court found another issue to be dispositive and declined to rule on the attorneys’ fees issue. 

Read More

October 21, 2013