Appellate Practice

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.   For example, the firm handled an appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in SEC v. Yun,  327 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2004) which dramatically changed the law of insider trading by establishing the requirement that the SEC prove the existence of a tipper benefit in an insider trading case based upon the misappropriation theory of liability. 

Additional reported decisions for Mr. Schoeppl at both the appellate and trial court levels in commercial litigation and securities matters include:  SEC v. Yun, 327 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2003); Computerized Thermal Imaging, Inc. v. Bloomberg, L.P., 312 F.3d 1292 (10th Cir. 2002); SEC v. Omnigene Development, Inc., 105 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (S.D. Fla.)(publication withdrawn at request of district court), aff’d, 240 F.3d 1079 (11th Cir. 2000)(unpublished table decision);  Aquamar, S.A. v. DelMonte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc., 179 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 1999);  Ubuy Holding, Inc. v. Gladstone, 340 F. Supp.2d 1343 (S.D. Fla. 2004);  SEC v. Yun, 208 F.3d 1279 (M.D. Fla. 2002);  Press v. Raether, 227 F. Supp.2d 1022 (E.D. Wis. 2002);  SEC v. Yun, 130 F.2d 1348 (M.D. Fla. 2001); SEC v. Yun, 148 F.3d 1287 (M.D. Fla. 2001);  In re Sunstar Securities Healthcare Litigation, 173 F. Supp.2d 1315 (M.D. Fla. 2001);  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. March 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. February 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); Williamson v. State, 681 So.2d 688 (Fla. 1996); Cadle Co. v. G&G Associates, 757 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); and Travel Access, Inc. v. System One Direct Access, Inc., 696 So.2d 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).