News » Legal Intelligencer

Articles Tagged with Legal Intelligencer

|

For practitioners who bring civil RICO or antitrust claims under statutes that authorize nationwide service of process, the decision matters a great deal. Although the decision was unanimous as to the result and broad in its reasoning, the court declined to provide a precise test for what the Fifth Amendment now requires, leaving lower courts to resolve the boundaries as the law settles.

In the July 21, 2026 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang writes, “A New Reach for RICO and Antitrust Plaintiffs: Personal Jurisdiction After ‘Fuld v. PLO’.” Continue reading ›

|

In Uber Technologies v. Simon & Simon, Judge Mark Kearney denied a motion to dismiss a RICO complaint filed by Uber and FedEx against the Philadelphia plaintiffs firm Simon & Simon, P.C. and a network of medical providers. The 54-page opinion charts how corporate defendants frame “systemic fraud” and what RICO plaintiffs must plead to survive a Rule 12 motion.

In the July 9, 2026 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang writes, “When the Lawyer Becomes the Defendant: RICO Comes for the Personal Injury Bar.” Continue reading ›

|

Metadata can reveal information about a document’s origin, authorship, transmission, modification, and use that may not be apparent from the document itself. This broader understanding of metadata illustrates why limiting requests to a handful of standard load-file fields may overlook metadata that is far more significant to the claims and defenses at issue.

In the June 11, 2026 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Kelly Lavelle writes, “Metadata Attorneys Are Not Asking for (but Should Be).” Continue reading ›

|

For practitioners advising EB-5 investors, capital recovery is rarely as simple as filing a breach-of-contract claim against a regional center or a new commercial enterprise (NCE). EB-5 disputes sit at the intersection of federal immigration law, federal and state securities regulation, partnership and LLC governance, and, increasingly, fraud-based statutory regimes.

In the May 14, 2026 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang writes, “When the American Dream Stalls: Litigation Strategies for EB-5 Investors Seeking the Return of Their Capital.” Continue reading ›

|

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit just disrupted that assumption. In Adventist Health System of West v. AbbVie, the court revived a qui tam action alleging systemic overcharges under 340B and, in doing so, made a critical point: the absence of a private right of action under 340B does not insulate manufacturers from liability under the False Claims Act (FCA).

In the April 16, 2026 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang writes, “No Private Right? No Problem: Ninth Circuit Lets 340B Pricing Claims Proceed Under the False Claims Act.” Continue reading ›

| and

While suing individual owners, officers, or directors alongside their corporate entities can work to a plaintiff’s advantage, this strategy carries a distinct risk: juries may personalize the corporate defendants, leading to smaller verdicts.

In the March 26, 2026 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang and Kandis Kovalsky co-authored, “Taking a Plaintiff’s Case to the Next Level, Part II: It Does Not Always Take Two—Why Naming Individuals as Defendants Is Not Always the Best Strategy.” Continue reading ›

|

Before privilege or production issues arise, the more basic inquiry is whether the information was ever confidential in the first place. This question is particularly significant in e-discovery, where electronically stored information generated by AI systems may later become discoverable.

In the March 19, 2026 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Kelly Lavelle writes, “AI Systems and the Question of Confidentiality.” Continue reading ›

| and

Strategic practitioners do not need to treat entity liability as the finish line; they may treat it as a starting point. Holding individual owners or officers personally liable—whether as partners, corporate actors, alter egos, or signatories—fundamentally alters the litigation landscape.

In the February 19, 2026 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang and Kandis Kovalsky co-authored, “Taking a Plaintiff’s Case to the Next Level: Holding Individuals Liable Under Pennsylvania Law.” Continue reading ›

|

This technological shift has triggered a parallel evolution in law. The conversation now spans from reforming Rule 901 to proposing a new Federal Rule of Evidence 707 specifically for AI-generated evidence. Simultaneously, ethics regulators are clarifying that lawyer competence requires understanding these technologies.

In the January 7, 2026 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang writes, “Authenticity Under Pressure: Rethinking Rule 901 in the Age of AI.” Continue reading ›

|

The speed and clarity with which institutions detect, escalate, investigate, and disclose cyber incidents directly influence the trajectory of litigation and regulatory scrutiny. Delays, ambiguities, or false or even incomplete notifications often become focal points in class-action claims, undermining institutional credibility.

In the November 26, 2025 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang writes, “From Vulnerability to Liability: Understanding Today’s Cyber Claims and Enforcement.” Continue reading ›

Contact Information
Philadelphia Office
123 S Broad St #1950
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Phone: (215) 525-5850
New Jersey Office
10000 Lincoln Dr E #201
Marlton, NJ 08053
Phone: (856) 266-9330
We serve clients throughout the Delaware Valley including, but not limited to, those in the following localities: Pennsylvania including Berks County, Bucks County, Chester County, Delaware County, Montgomery County, and Philadelphia County; New Jersey including Atlantic County, Burlington County, Camden County, Cape May County, Cumberland County, Gloucester County, Salem County, and Mercer County; Delaware including Kent County and New Castle County; and Maryland including Cecil County. We also serve clients in New York. View More

California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) Opt-Out IconYour Privacy Choices Cookie Policy Manage Cookies

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2026, Kang Haggerty LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design