Daniel M. Coyle

Attorney

As of 2019, Daniel M. Coyle is Board Certified in International Litigation and Arbitration by the Florida Bar.

Desde 2019, Daniel M. Coyle está certificado pela Ordem dos Advogados da Flórida como especialista em Litígio e Arbitragem Internacionais.

Daniel M. Coyle

Attorney

Education

J.D., University of Miami School of Law (2008)

• Magna cum laude graduate
• Order of the Coif

B.A., Saint Anselm College (2000)

• Cum laude graduate

Admissions

• The Florida Bar
• United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
• United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida
• United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida

Daniel M. Coyle

Attorney

Honors / Achievements

Daniel has been honored with diverse recognitions for his significant contributions to the legal profession, including:

• Florida Super Lawyers, Rising Star 2016-2018
• Member of the international committee for NAFER
• Panel member of the 2018 conference, “So We Have an Asset Where?”
• Co-authored an article with Gregory S. Grossman entitled, “When a Lender Fails, Its Borrower’s Litigation Defenses May Be (D’Oench) Duhmed,” published in the January 2013 issue of the Florida Bar Journal
• Speaker at the December 1, 2016 Pincus Professional Education Seminar, entitled “Chapter 11 Challenges: Beyond the Basics” on the topic of Post-Confirmation Litigation

Daniel M. Coyle

Attorney

Published Decisions

Published decisions in which Daniel has participated include:

• Counsel of record for the defendant in Abel & Buchheim , P.R., Inc. v. Citibank, Nat’l Ass’n, 1:16-CV-24663-KMM, 2017 WL 3731002, (S.D. Fla. Aug. 28, 2017), in which the plaintiff sued the bank under a fact-pattern that the bank permitted plaintiff’s former officer/director to transfer funds from the corporate account despite the existence of an injunction.  The depositor sued the bank under theories of aiding and abetting as well as negligence.  The Court dismissed the aiding and abetting counts because the factual assertions in this complaint did not allege that the bank had actual knowledge of the underlying torts or that the bank assisted the former officer/director’s tortious conduct by merely allowing her to withdraw funds from the accounts.  The Court dismissed the negligence claim against the bank because plaintiff’s claims were not for the recovery of bodily injury or property damage and “there is no common-law duty of a defendant in negligence to protect a plaintiff from mere economic losses.”
• Counsel of record for the Foreign Trustee in In re Massa Falida Do Banco Cruzeiro Do Sul S.A., 14-22974-BKC-LMI, 2017 WL 1102814 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. Mar. 23, 2017), which is the first published decision nationwide that a foreign liquidator in a Chapter 15 adversary proceeding may assert US-state-law fraudulent transfer/fraudulent conveyance claims to claw back fraudulent transfers on behalf of the foreign debtor and/or its creditors.
• Counsel of record for the defendant in Gilbert & Caddy, P.A. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 193 F. Supp. 3d 1294 (S.D. Fla. 2016), which is the first published decision in a Florida state or federal court that a bank, in the deposit agreement, may shorten the time-period for a depositor/customer to report an allegedly fraudulent electronic funds transfer.
• Counsel of record for the defendant in First Citizen’s Bank v. Tamach Gables Square, LLC, Case No. 09-22055 CA 32, 11^th Judicial Circuit, in which the bank obtained summary judgment on the basis of the D’Oench Duhme doctrine as to the borrower/guarantors’ affirmative defenses, which were all based upon an alleged oral loan modification.
• Counsel of record in In re Viação Itapemirim, S.A., 607 B.R. 761 (S.D. Fla. Bankr. 2019), in which the Court ruled that a discovery target in a chapter 15, who was neither a creditor nor a shareholder of the foreign debtor, was not permitted under either Fed. R. Bankr. P. or 11 U.S.C. § 1521(a)(4) to seek discovery on matters unrelated to the foreign representative’s authority to pursue Chapter 15 relief because allowing such discovery would intrude into foreign representative’s investigative pursuits.
• Counsel of record in In re Viação Itapemirim, S.A., 608 B.R. 268 (S.D. Fla. Bankr. 2019), ruling that a subpoena was validly served under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 upon a deponent where the subpoena was served upon a housekeeper at a Miami apartment leased to the deponent, regardless of whether or not the deponent resided in Miami at the time and/or was not present in Miami at the time, since the deponent’s wife and two children resided at the apartment at the time, the deponent had maintained a presence in Miami and it was undisputed that the deponent had actually received the subpoena.

Daniel M. Coyle

Attorney