Kang Haggerty is pleased to announce that Gregory H. Mathews (Commercial Litigation) and Henry J. Donner (Construction Law) have been selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America© 2020, recognized for excellence in their respective practices for the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania market.
Articles Posted in Business Litigation and Dispute Resolution
Legal Intelligencer: Piercing the Corporate Veil Under Pennsylvania Law
In the June 20, 2019 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang, Managing Member of Kang Haggerty wrote “Piercing the Corporate Veil Under Pennsylvania Law.”
In its simplest form, the piercing of the corporate veil is an equitable remedy available to the creditors of corporate entities to request the court to hold their owners liable for the corporate debts. The underlying cause of action against the corporate entity could be a contract or tort action, none of which is attributable to its owners. For the creditors, the veil-piercing is desirable as their last resort to recover their damages while for the owners, it is detrimental as it exposes them to the type of liability that they wished to exonerate themselves from by forming a company in the first place. These two competing interests drive the forces behind the state laws on substantive elements and procedural requirements for veil-piercing: the more favorable the state policy is toward preserving limited liability, the harder it is under the state law for the court to disregard corporate entity, and the other way around. Pennsylvania law adopted a “strong presumption” against veil-piercing, see Stephen B. Presser, “Section 2:42.Pennsylvania, in Piercing the Corporate Veil,” (last updated July 2018).
Substantive Elements
Pennsylvania state and federal courts applying Pennsylvania law has long listed a vast set of factors that the court may consider in its decision to disregard the corporate shield, including, among others, using the corporate form as a sham to pursue fraudulent or illegal activities or to cause injustice, ignoring corporate formalities, undercapitalizing the company and exerting control to influence the corporate decisions and actions for personal interests. Continue reading ›
Legal Intelligencer: Do Directors of a Board Have Access to the Company’s Privileged Materials?
What happens when a dispute is between or among directors of the same company? Can the company use the attorney-client privilege to shield corporate materials, including any attorney-client privileged materials against a director?
Kang Haggerty’s Henry Donner again recognized as Senior Statesman for Construction Law in 2019 Chambers USA
Kang Haggerty LLC, a boutique business litigation firm with offices in Philadelphia, PA and Marlton, NJ, is proud to once again congratulate Henry Donner, Of Counsel, named the Senior Statesman for construction lawyers in Pennsylvania in the 2019 edition of Chambers USA.
As the only senior statesman for the construction law practice in the state, Chambers USA calls Donner an “Excellent lawyer…a seasoned expert in the construction community. His clients include developers, condominium associations, contractors, subcontractors and design professionals. They appreciate his abilities to ‘cut to the heart of the problem and not get sidetracked’ and ‘to listen to what your needs are and act accordingly.’
Legal Intelligencer: Attorney-Client Privilege and Abuse of Privilege
In the April 11, 2019 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang, Managing Member of Kang Haggerty wrote “Attorney-Client Privilege and Abuse of Privilege.”
The attorney-client privilege, the oldest evidentiary privilege known to the common law, is an exception to one of the main policies behind the paramount rule of evidence that relevant evidence is admissible at trial. In this regard, the attorney-client privilege is an obstruction to the search for the truth. The privilege protects confidential attorney-client communications made for the purposes of obtaining legal advice. While many attorney-client communications are confidential, they are not privileged unless they were made for obtaining legal advice. The attorney-client privilege is designed to facilitate free attorney-client communications without the fear of unwanted disclosure so that clients can receive competent legal advice from their lawyers. Continue reading ›
Jackie Fetbroyt presents on Business Contracts in 10 Simple Steps for NBI
On April 18, 2019, Kang Haggerty member Jackie Fetbroyt will be a featured speaker for NBI’s Business Contracts in 10 Simple Steps for the National Business Institute. The CLE will take place at the Hilton Garden Inn Philadelphia Center City, 1100 Arch Street, from 9 am until 4:30 pm.
In this comprehensive seminar on business contracts, you’ll get real-world pointers on how to draft, review and negotiate business contracts in 10 simple steps. Acquire the skills you need to avoid risk, minimize liabilities, ensure enforceability and maximize protections. Don’t miss out on this practical program that will equip you with the foundational aspects of contracts every business attorney needs to know. Continue reading ›
Edward Kang writes on finding a Niche Defending against Business Betrayals for the ABA’s Law Practice Today
“As part of my business divorce practice, I often represent one owner against other owners. People who may have once been close friends or family members now turn into ugly, bitter enemies. What started as a company with shared goals and vision has dissipated into a pool of litigation,” writes Kang Haggerty managing member Edward T. Kang in the March 2019 edition of the American Bar Association’s Law Practice Today (LPT) webzine. In Finding a Niche Defending against Business Betrayals, Kang discusses his firm’s niche practice representing Officers and Directors in these often-complicated business disputes. Continue reading ›
Legal Intelligencer: Defending Officers and Directors From a Lawsuit by the Company
In the January 3, 2019 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang, Managing Member of Kang Haggerty wrote “Defending Officers and Directors From a Lawsuit by the Company.”
When a corporate director or officer is sued by a third party for alleged misconduct carried out in her capacity as director/officer, the company generally indemnifies the director/officer by defending her against the lawsuit. The company’s duty of indemnification arises from both the law and governing corporate documents (e.g., articles of incorporation, bylaws or employment agreement). While there are limited exceptions to the company’s duty of indemnification—e.g., the director/officer acted in her personal capacity or that she acted in bad faith against the interest of the company—the duty of indemnification is broad. The company must defend the director/officer, at least until the court determines otherwise. What protection does a corporate director/officer have, however, if the person suing her is the company itself?
A company sues its officer or director more frequently than many people think. The company could bring a direct lawsuit against an officer or director for a breach of fiduciary duty (e.g., alleged self-dealing). Sometimes, a shareholder could bring a derivative lawsuit under the company’s name against the officer or director. Continue reading ›
Have the Courts Made Room for Inevitability Under the Defend Trade Secrets Act?
In the November 29, 2018 edition of The Legal Intelligencer Edward Kang, Managing Member of Kang Haggerty and Kandis Kovalsky, Associate of Kang Haggerty, co-authored “Have the Courts Made Room for Inevitability Under the Defend Trade Secrets Act?”
The Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), 18 U.S.C. Section 1836, et seq., which was enacted on May 11, 2016, after a Senate vote of 87-0, is the first federal law to protect trade secrets. The rare unanimous vote was unsurprising given the stunning report by the Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property that outlined how theft of intellectual property costs U.S. businesses more than $300 billion a year.
The DTSA highlighted Congress’ goal of aligning the federal law closely with the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), which has been adopted in some form in almost every state. Just as the Lanham Act, which coexists with state trademark law, the DTSA coexists with state trade secret law. As such, it is important to understand this interplay and what it is likely to look like going forward. Continue reading ›
Kang Haggerty Earns Tier 1 Ranking from U.S. News “Best Law Firms” 2019
Kang Haggerty LLC has been named a Tier 1 law firm in Philadelphia for construction law by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” 2019. In addition, the firm received a national tier 3 ranking in construction law, and a tier 2 rating in Philadelphia for commercial litigation.
The U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” rankings are based on a rigorous evaluation process that includes the collection of client and lawyer evaluations, peer review from leading attorneys in their field, and review of additional information provided by law firms as part of the formal submission process. To be eligible for a ranking in a particular practice area and metro region, a law firm must have at least one lawyer who is included in Best Lawyers in that particular practice area and metro.
To learn more, visit bestlawfirms.usnews.com.