we deliver creative and effective business solutions and counsel

In the News  |  Publications Expand All  |  Collapse All

Paul Avron practices primarily in the areas of corporate reorganization, bankruptcy law, creditors' rights and appellate litigation, both state and federal.

Representative Experience

  • Represented several Chapter 11 Debtors in bankruptcy proceedings including Ruden McClosky P.A., Levitt and Sons, LLC, et al., First NLC Financial Services, LLC, et al., MPI Eagles, LLC, et al. and Miles Properties, Inc., et al.
  • Represented several individuals and entities in appellate matters before the United States District Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the Florida Supreme Court.
  • Reported decisions include the following appellate matters:
    • Krause v. Textron Financial Corp., 59 So. 3d 1085 (Fla. 2011): Holding, in part, that the tolling provisions in § 1367(d) tolls claims commenced in federal court but later dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction such that the dismissed claims could be reasserted in state court if filed within 30 days of dismissal.
    • Osborne v. Dumoulin, 55 So. 3d 577 (Fla. 2011): Holding that, for the purpose of the statutory personal property exemption in Fla. Stat. § 222.25(4), a debtor in bankruptcy does not receive the benefits of Florida's constitutional homestead exemption where the debtor owns homestead property but does not claim the exemption in bankruptcy and the trustee's administration of the property is not otherwise impeded by the existence of the exemption.
    • Lawrence v. Goldberg, 573 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2009): Holding, in part, that the Barton doctrine applied to suit by debtor against the chapter 7 trustee and his professionals where the crux of the suit concerned efforts to collect and reduce to money an offshore asset protection trust found to constitute property of the bankrupt estate.
    • In re Piccadilly Cafaterias, Inc., 484 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2007): Holding that Bankruptcy Code § 1146(a)’s stamp tax exemption applies to transactions necessary to consummation of a confirmed chapter 11 plan. This ruling was reversed by the United States Supreme Court which sided with other circuit courts of appeal which have that the exemption contemplated by § 1146(a) only applies to transfers under a chapter 11 plan.
    • Rodriguez v. Dept. of Corrections, 508 F.3d 611 (11th Cir. 2007): Holding that the district court erred in granting judgment for defendants/appellees where genuine issue for trial existed concerning plaintiff/appellant’s § 1983 claims deriving from near fatal attack at prison after prison authorities had been advised by prisoner that his life was in danger).
    • Chames v. DeMayo, 972 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 2007): Holding that there can be no waiver of the homestead protection provided for in Florida’s constitution in respect of an unsecured claim as distinguished from a secured (mortgage) claim.
    • In re Westwood Community Two Ass’n, Inc., 2006 WL 940647 (11th Cir. April 12, 2006): Affirming order denying fees and ordering fees received by trustee’s counsel disgorged because counsel had no right to be paid from funds derived from an improper assessment against non-debtor homeowners where such funds were not estate property and because counsel ran the risk of nonpayment and disgorgement if the estate turned out to be insolvent. 
    • Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C. v. Kaplan, 902 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 2005): Holding that parties may assign claims for legal malpractice committed in preparing private placement memoranda, and receding from dicta in prior caselaw purporting to prohibit the assignment of all legal malpractice claims.
    • Lawrence v. Goldberg, 2006 WL 2269802 (11th Cir. Sept. 19, 2005): Affirming district court’s denial of debtor/appellant’s writ of prohibition and mandamus based on his to meet the strict requirements for such extraordinary relief in connection with his incarceration for civil contempt for failure to comply with turnover order concerning the res of an offshore asset protection trust.
    • In re Piper Aircraft Corp., 362 F.3d 736 (11th Cir. 2004): Affirming denial of post-confirmation motion to compel the trustee for the Piper Aircraft Irrevocable Trust to furnish certain records that the trustee supplied to actuaries in connection with a re-computation process directed by the Trust where movant had received all documents required by the Trust and it failed to negotiate a provision requiring the trustee to provide further documentation.
    • In re Bateman, 331 F.3d 821 (11th Cir. 821 (11th Cir. 2003): Holding that a secured creditor cannot collaterally attack a confirmed chapter 13 plan, even though the plan conflicted with the mandatory provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, where the secured creditor failed to object to the plan's confirmation or appeal the confirmation order, and that a secured creditor's claim for mortgage arrearage survives the confirmed plan to the extent it is not satisfied in full by payments under the plan, or otherwise satisfied under the terms Code § 1325(a)(5).
    • In re World Wide Web Systems, Inc., 328 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2003): Affirming denial of defendants/appellants’ motion to vacate default judgment in avoidance action where they failed to establish “excusable neglect,” that is, a meritorious defense that might have affected the outcome; granting the motion would not result in prejudice to the non-defaulting party, and (3) a good reason existed for failing to reply to the complaint.
    • In re Martinez, 311 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2002): Affirming grant of summary judgment against law firm based on claims that firm, engaged in debt collection activities, violated § 1962g of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by failing to give notice required under the statute.
    • In re Lawrence, 279 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2002): Affirming order directing debtor to turn over to the chapter 7 trustee the res of an offshore asset protection trust and holding the debtor in contempt and ordering him incarcerated until he purged the contempt by complying with turnover order.
    • Ex Parte Karl James Dorough, 773 So. 2d 1001 (Ala. 2000): The Supreme Court held that it could not determine whether the forfeiture of the petitioner’s vehicle was excessive and, therefore, violates the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution because the trial court made no findings as to the value of the vehicle, the amount of controlled substance seized from the vehicle or the criminal charge, if any, made against the petitioner.
    • In re Alabama Symphony Ass’n, 211 B.R. 65 (N.D. Ala. 1996): Holding, in part, that the bankruptcy court committed reversible error in approving debtor-symphony’s rejection of collective bargaining agreement with union where the debtor-symphony breached the collective bargaining agreement and, therefore, Code § 1113(f).
    • In re Miami Trucolor Offset Serv. Co., 187 B.R. 767 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1995): Holding, in part, that where creditors whose claims were subject of objections neither sought or obtained leave of the court to have their claims allowed for voting purposes prior to the deadline to submit ballots, their ballots rejecting the plan could not be counted where the plan provided that creditors whose claims were subject to objections had to obtain an order allowing same for voting purposes.
    • In re North Alabama Anesthesiology Group, Inc., 154 B.R 752 (N.D. Ala. 1993): Reversing an order of the bankruptcy court enjoining a state suit against non-debtor guarantors for breach of consulting and non-compete agreement based on the res judicata effect of a ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court that the chapter 11 confirmation order did not bar the state suit.

Awards & Recognition

  • AV Rated by Martindale-Hubbell

Articles & Presentations

Articles

  • "What Constitutes 'Tolling' Motions?," The Record, Spring 2012
  • ABI Journal, "Does Automatic Stay Apply to Appeals Being Prosecuted by Debtor of Adverse Order?," February 2012
  • ABI Journal, "An Aircraft Lessor is Not Entitled to Adequate Protection During Section 1110 60-Day Period: A Reply,", July/August 2011;
  • The Record, The United States Supreme Court Clarifies When a Deadline to File a Notice of Appeal is "Jurisdictional", Fall/Winter 2009
  • ABI Journal, Is an Aircraft Lessor Entitled to Adequate Protection Under § 363(e) During the § 1110 60-Day Period?, April 2009;
  • ABI Journal, Are WARN Act Claims Within the Scope of § 503(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the Bankruptcy Code?, September 2008;
  • The Record, A Primer on the Effect of Post-Trial Motions For Attorneys' Fees, Pre-Judgment Interest, and Costs in Federal Court on Previously-Issued Money Judgments, Fall/Winter 2007-08;
  • The Record, Direct Appeals From Bankruptcy Courts to Circuit Courts of Appeal Under Amended 28 U.S.C. § 158(d), Winter/Spring, 2007;
  • The Federal Lawyer, A Primer on 28 U.S.C § 1367 Dealing with Supplemental Jurisdiction, February 2007; ABI Journal, Rule 2014(a) and a Rule of Reason or Safe Harbor Guideline Revisited, February, 2007;
  • The Federal Lawyer, The Little Doctrine That (Almost) Could: The Supreme Court Clarifies the Narrow Scope of the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, January, 2006;
  • The Federal Lawyer, Must "New Value" Remain Unpaid in Order for a Preference Defendant to Assert the "New Value" Defense?, June, 2005;
  • ABI Journal, Amend Rule 2014(a) to Include a Rule of Reason or Safe Harbor Guidelines, December/January, 2005;
  • The Record, Are Remand Orders by District Courts to Bankruptcy Courts in the Eleventh Circuit "Final" Orders for Purposes of Appeal?, Winter, 2005;
  • The Record, Extraordinary Writs of Certiorari and Mandamus: Standards in Review, Fall, 2004;
  • ABI Journal, Defining "Value" in 11 U.S.C. §363(f)(3), November, 2004;
  • The Record, Preservation in Federal Appeals: Untangling the Web, Spring, 2004;
  • ABI Journal, Is a Bankruptcy Court Bound by a Decision of a Single District Court Judge in a Multi-Judge District?, July/August, 2003;
  • The Record, Federal Standards of Review for Appeals in the Eleventh Circuit, Spring, 2003;
  • The Record, Standing in Bankruptcy Appeals Refined, Fall, 2002;
  • The Record, The Collateral Order Doctrine, Spring, 2002;
  • The Record, Judge Rosemary Barkett 2001 Recipient of James C. Adkins Award, Fall, 2001;
  • The Record, Practicing in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals: Avoiding Common Pitfalls, Fall, 2001;
  • The Record, Office of the Solicitor General of Florida: An Overview, Spring, 2001;
  • ABI Journal, Cracking the Code Series, How to Dismiss an Ancillary Case, June 24, 1996.
  • Church/State Survey: Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. Board of Equalization, 493 U.S. 378 (1990), 22.3 Cumb. L. Rev. 892 (1992), and Eleventh Circuit Survey: Fair Housing Act: Sofarelli v. Pinellas County, 931 F.2d 718 (11th Cir. 1991), 22.2 Cumb. L. Rev. 456 (1992).

Presentations

  • Speaker, "Fundamentals of Restructuring a Municipal Entity Pursuant to Chapter 9 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code" McGladrey, Public Sector Continuing Education Seminar (June 2010)
  • Speaker, 28th Annual Seminar of the Florida Municipal Attorneys Association (July 2009)
  • Speaker, Monthly telephonic seminar of the Appellate Section of The Florida Bar (March 2009)
  • Speaker, For the Record: Evidentiary Hearing and Appellate Considerations for a Winning Case, Business Law Section of The Florida Bar (March 2005)

Prior Affiliations

  • Markowitz, Davis, Ringel & Trusty, P.A., Miami, FL
  • Schoel, Ogle, Benton & Centeno, P.A., Birmingham, AL