By Tal Lifshitz
February 26, 2026
Lawyers who understand AI’s strengths and limits can do more, with less. And the more the lawyer understands how to leverage these tools, the more they can do, for less. That should be enough, on its own, to spark at least some level of excitement for developing this competence in any attorney.
Click here to read the original article.
By David Minsky
February 24, 2026
A Texas bank sought to dismiss an adversary complaint alleging it helped a nonprofit founder defraud a special needs trust out of $100 million, telling a Florida federal bankruptcy court Tuesday the lawsuit doesn’t plausibly claim the lender knew of any wrongdoing..
Click here to read the original article.
By Vivienne Serret
February 20, 2026
“We offer a lot of hands-on experience, real lawyer work experience, and a more complete environment than a lot of the Big Law firms do, and that really helps us to keep our talent,” said Jorge L. Piedra, managing partner at South Florida firm Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton.
Click here to read the original article.
By Michael R. Lorigas
Lawyers who understand AI’s strengths and limits can do more, with less. And the more the lawyer understands how to leverage these tools, the more they can do, for less. That should be enough, on its own, to spark at least some level of excitement for developing this competence in any attorney.
Click here to read the original article.
By Tal Lifshitz and Meaghan Goldstein
In a major win for plaintiffs and a potential game-changer in fraud and RICO litigation, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of a billion-dollar lawsuit against Citigroup. The landmark opinion provides a much-needed reset of the pleading requirements for knowledge and substantial assistance under Florida law and a valuable green light to claims that may have, until recently, seemed unwinnable.
The appellate court’s May 8, 2025, decision in Otto Candies, LLC v. Citigroup Inc., (penned by Judge Britt Grant and joined by Judges Jill Pryor and Lisa Branch) not only revives a long-running case involving forged documents and $1 billion in losses but also breaks new ground by recalibrating the standard for fraud and aiding-and-abetting liability at the pleading stage.
Context: A Case Long Dismissed, Now Reopened
The plaintiffs, a mix of shipping companies, investment funds, and a bank, alleged that Citigroup, through its subsidiary Banamex, knowingly funded fraudulent cash advances to Mexican oil contractor Oceanografía (OSA), allowing OSA to inflate its finances and dupe creditors and bondholders. Citigroup allegedly ignored forged documents, processed large transactions without due diligence, and failed to disclose OSA’s deteriorating condition, all while earning millions in interest.
After years at the pleading stage and multiple dismissals in the Southern District of Florida, the Eleventh Circuit reversed in full, reviving all seven claims, including fraud, RICO, and aiding and abetting fraud.
A Major Shift: The Eleventh Circuit Corrects Course
Prior to Otto Candies, district courts in the Eleventh Circuit often applied heightened pleading expectations for claims of aiding and abetting fraud. Relying on district court orders in cases like Lamm and Lawrence to justify dismissals based on a failure to plead a “strong inference” of actual knowledge, district courts in this Circuit have required plaintiffs to allege that an aiding-and-abetting defendant had detailed insight into every aspect of the underlying fraud. In practice, that standard made it nearly impossible to survive the motion-to-dismiss stage without the benefit of discovery.
Otto Candies expressly disapproves of that approach and clarifies that plaintiffs can allege knowledge generally, relying on facts that make knowledge plausible. Instead, the Eleventh Circuit has clarified, it is sufficient to allege (as it is in Florida state court) that the defendant had a “general awareness that its role was part of an overall improper activity.” By endorsing this “general awareness” standard, the court rejected the notion that plaintiffs must allege direct and actual knowledge of the ins and outs of a particular fraud and confirmed that it is enough for a plaintiff, at the outset of the case, to allege facts that support a “reasonable inference” that the defendant knew about the underlying fraud.
This decision marks a significant shift in jurisprudence for our Circuit and reflects a more practical understanding of how frauds operate, particularly in complex financial schemes, where knowledge is often inferred from involvement, access to information, or internal red flags.
Substantial Assistance Can Be Ordinary Business
The opinion also reaffirms that conduct that may appear ordinary on the surface—like extending loans or processing payments—can qualify as substantial assistance if, for example, “the bank actually knew those transactions were assisting the customer in committing a specific tort.’”
That language is especially significant in Ponzi scheme, bank fraud, and third-party liability cases, where institutions routinely defend themselves as merely performing “routine transactions” and, before Otto Candies, had the additional shield of feigning ignorance as to knowledge even where a “general awareness” of wrongdoing was undeniable.
Final Thoughts
In reversing the district court’s dismissal, the panel provided much-needed guidance for future courts grappling with these issues (and solidified language that will, no doubt, be quoted for years to come by plaintiffs at the pleading stage):
The court failed to engage with the totality of the plaintiffs’ allegations, ignored certain claims altogether, and flipped the presumption at the pleading stage on its head by reading inferences and uncertainties against the plaintiffs . . . [R]ather than evaluating whether the plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded their claims, the court effectively asked whether the plaintiffs had proven them.
And further:
In a scheme as complex as this one, there is often no smoking gun, particularly before discovery . . . plaintiffs with ‘substantial prediscovery evidence’—as shown by these plaintiffs’ detailed complaint and accompanying exhibits—can proceed past the motion-to-dismiss stage.
These paragraphs are now among the strongest language in the Eleventh Circuit for pushing back against early-stage dismissals in fraud, conspiracy, and aiding-and-abetting cases.
Otto Candies reopens a billion-dollar case, but its impact is much broader. For plaintiffs’ lawyers working in financial fraud, this is a landmark ruling with major implications.
By Jorge Piedra
Many thanks to the Daily Business Review and reporter Vivienne Serret for the great story featuring my perspectives on my “Closed-Door Policy” and the benefits it brings to our firm and our clients. I’ve received a lot of interesting feedback on the story (including some very creative memes) so I thought that I would share the article that I wrote (but never published) which led to the story.
First, some background: Like most trial lawyers, whenever I am not in court or in a deposition, by the time I arrive at the office (and I try to get in early) I already have an overwhelming list of tasks to complete – even before the day’s e-mails start flooding in. While attending the DBR’s recent “Managing Partner of the Year” awards presentation, I realized that my approach to this common problem might be different. That evening, as I read the nominees’ glowing bios and listened to their long speeches, I was sure there was zero chance I would win. In addition to coming from much bigger law firms, these managing partners all touted “open-door” policies and how they encouraged anyone to enter their office anytime – a popular practice I’ve not only disliked, I’ve made a point to prohibit.
Listening to them, I kept asking myself: “How do these managing partners do it? Do they really have an open-door policy, or is that marketing hype? How do they get any work done?” I know the degree of focus that success at complex litigation requires, and I could not imagine allowing anyone to waltz into my office and interrupt me whenever their heart desired.
So, I will say the quiet part out loud, and verbalize what many others have probably thought but were too afraid to express. Here are the facts: For many years, even going back to when I ran my own law firm before I joined Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton in 2019, I implemented the exact opposite: a “Closed-Door Policy.” I purposely write it here in capital letters, because I am suddenly convinced it needs to become a “thing.” Back in the day, lawyers, paralegals, and assistants would line up at my door, all waiting to talk to me. My assistant joked that it was like the deli at a grocery store, and she was responsible for handing out tickets.
Imagine this: I would be on a call (pre-Zoom) and someone would walk in and sit across from me, and stare at me as I spoke on the phone. Another one waiting outside. And perhaps another one waiting after that one. I did the math: Here are one, two, and maybe three people just waiting around. Not working on their cases. Not attending to our clients’ needs. Not advancing the goals or the mission of our practice in any way. Meanwhile, I would lose concentration on my call or try to rush through it. Not a good scenario for anyone – neither for me, nor my clients, nor the people waiting to ask me questions.
Just as bad was when someone would walk in as I was reading or writing something. A total interruption that I call a “hijack” — as in, you just hijacked my time. I would lose my train of thought and later have to spend more time trying to remember whatever I was thinking. As they were talking to me, I could barely hear what they were saying because I kept wondering: ”Could this really not wait until I was free?” I was notorious for answering questions and making decisions without even remembering the conversation. Funny, but true. I want to make this clear: While it may not sound this way from this article, I try my best — day in and day out — to be a good mentor, colleague and friend. My motivation for a closed door, truly, is that I want to do what’s best for everyone – which includes nurturing the professional growth, personal empowerment and independent thinking of my colleagues.
At KTT, as well as in my prior life at my own firm, the role of managing partner is not ceremonial. It is a real job where important decisions must be made. Always. In addition, at KTT as well as my own firm before, I chose to be a practicing lawyer with a full load of cases. Because I love managing, and I love lawyering, and I love that I get to do both at such a high level.
But as a result, most of my day is scheduled. It has to be. And clients pay me to read, analyze, think, write and prepare. It is impossible to complete these tasks effectively if you are having constant interruptions. It is also a waste of resources for lawyers to stand around waiting to talk to me or anyone else.
So, here’s what I do. I always set aside an hour a day to speak to anyone who needs to speak to me when I can give them my undivided attention – if more time is needed, I will set it aside, but beyond that, my door is closed. And most people know not to knock, although I am fascinated by how some people think this policy does not apply to them or that their “minor” interruption does not count. I would love to have my door open, but the temptation to stick your head in and ask how my weekend was is too great for some. The policy is simple: if you need to speak to me, send me an e-mail and I will schedule time and you will get my undivided attention. If it is urgent, send me a text. If you want to know how my weekend was, ask me in the breakroom at lunch or in the elevator, or during the hour that I set aside every day to speak with anyone who needs it. My colleagues know not to walk into my office or knock on my door if it is closed, unless they have an appointment. However, once they are meeting with me, they get my full and undivided attention – and I go out of my way to ensure their questions are not only answered but that they’ve come away better equipped to perhaps handle the next one on their own. To be clear, I’m not against collaboration and conversation – I’m against the rampant misuse of time that has largely become known as an open-door policy.
At the end of the day, if you enjoy an open-door policy, by all means go for it. Or if you enjoy a partially open-door policy, you should go for that, too. Perhaps you are better at time management and multi-tasking. My point is: I like my door closed, and that’s how it is going to stay. Since the article was published, I learned that there is a retired managing partner of a major firm who had a similar policy. He told me that he had an open-door policy before 8 a.m. and after 6 p.m. on weekdays and all-day Saturday. I’m sure we can’t be the only ones who feel this way. If so, feel free to reach out so we can grab a coffee (scheduled of course) and exchange war stories – who knows, we may join forces and start the “Closed-Door Club.”
By David J. Neal
February 6, 2026
Nobody expects to have to file for bankruptcy either as a private citizen, owner of a company or part of corporate leadership. But, it happens. By U.S. Courts.
Click here to read the original article.
