Couldn't follow the math worth a damn (been too long without practice), but the paper appears to contradict nearly everything I've learned up to now about black holes.

The physical reason for non-occurrence of trapped surfaces is again “nothing can move faster than light” because it was shown that occurrence of a trapped surface would mean the local 3-speed of the collapsing fluid would exceed the
speed of light v > c (Mitra 2004, 2005a, 2005b). In fact, at the “apparent horizon”, one should find the acceleration of the fluid to blow up. Therefore, an apparent horizon cum EH may only asymptotically form as R → 0 and M → 0. Unfortunately the BH and singularity “experts”, having already made too much commitment and investment in the BH/singularity paradigm, found both the exact derivation of the theorem of non-occurrence of trapped surfaces and its physical interpretation to be most inconvenient and chose to quietly ignore them. Since an EH is never formed, there is no trapping of any quantum information within any EH. Thus actually, there was never any Hawking radiation or Quantum Information paradox. And obviously there need not be any resolution of this paradox either because, in reality, it was never there (Mitra 2005a).

(p. 25 - emphasis mine)

It gets postively snarky at times, especially around p. 20, et seq. -- and it's in serious need of a good copy editor (I presume that's because this is a pre-print). But if the math is correct, it implies that black holes as we thought we knew them do not now, nor never have, existed.

I wonder what Hawking makes of this...

And I wonder what implications there are for the accepted theories of supernovae and neutron star formation, since this paper also attempts to put paid to Chandrasekhar.