APPELLATE PRACTICE PROFILE

       The firm's appellate practice is well-established in Florida and various federal circuit courts of appeal. Mr. Schoeppl has represented a diverse array of clients ranging from the Republic of Ecuador in a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Aquamar, S.A. v. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., 179 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 1999), to a death row inmate before the Florida Supreme Court in Williamson v. State, 681 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1996), and appears regularly on behalf of clients in appellate matters before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and other federal circuit courts, and before the Florida Supreme Court and Florida District Courts of Appeal. Due to the complex nature of certain appellate matters, the firm is often faced with briefing significant legal questions, issues of first impression, and even novel legal theories.   The firm is currently handling an appeal in an SEC case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit styled SEC v. Yun, 130 F. Supp. 2d 1348 (M.D. Fla.), appeal filed, No. 01-11332-E (11th Cir. Mar. 12, 2001), which could dramatically impact the law of insider trading. In another appeal, the firm represents a public company in a $100 million claim for libel against a major national business publication in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has been requested to decide the correct pleading standards for libel per se under Utah law.

      

       Additional reported decisions for Mr. Schoeppl at both the appellate and trial court levels in commercial litigation and securities matters include: SEC v. Yun, 130 F. Supp. 2d 1348 (M.D. Fla.), appeal filed, No. 01-11332-E (11th Cir. Mar. 12, 2001); SEC v. Omnigene Development, Inc., 105 F. Supp. 2d 13 6 (S.D. Fla.)(publication withrawn at request of district court), aff'd, 240 F.3d 1079 (11th Cir. 2000)(unpublished table decision); Vincelli v. National Home Health Care Corp., 112 F. Supp. 2d 1309 (M.D. Fla. 2000); SEC v. Bradt, [Current Transfer Binder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 98,624 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 1995)(a $27 million "Ponzi" scheme case involving the notorious con-man Thomas R. Mullens and the defunct Omni Capital Group, Ltd.); SEC v. Chapnick, [1993-1994 Transfer Binder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 98,076 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 1994)(an insider trading and $33 million securities fraud case involving former officers of the failed Commonwealth Savings and Loan Association of Florida); Cadle Co. v. G & G Assoc., 737 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 4th DCA), remanded to, Cadle Co. v. G & G Assoc., 741 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), review granted sub nom., Grieco v. Cadle Co., 761 So. 2d 329 (Fla.) (unpublished table decision), and review dismissed by stipulation, Grieco v. Cadle Co., 770 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 2000) (unpublished table decision); Travel Access, Inc. v. System One Direct Access, Inc., 696 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); and Periera v. Florida Power & Light Co., 680 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).