ESI often contains confidential data, such as trade secrets, financial information, and personal data, and attorneys need to be aware of their obligations to protect this information and prevent unauthorized disclosure.
In the June 8, 2023 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Kelly A. Lavelle wrote “Safeguarding Data Privacy in the E-Discovery Process.” Continue reading ›
Not all indemnification and advancement rights are created equal. While many companies provide broad and mandatory advancement rights to covered persons, some companies provide permissive advancement rights.
In the May 18, 2023 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang wrote “Officers and Directors Should Seek Mandatory Advancement Provision“ Continue reading ›
The Supreme Court is taking up two U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit cases where rulings shielded both food-and-pharmacy chains from FCA liability for alleged improper billing involving prescription drugs. If the high court sides with the Seventh Circuit, the impending result could mean an exponential loss of taxpayer money.
In the April 13, 2023 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang and Kandis Kovalsky wrote “When Is Knowing ‘Knowing’ in FCA Cases? High Court Examines Two Cases“
Earlier last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in SodexoMAGIC v. Drexel University made this law—that the gist of the action doctrine does not bar a viable tort claim between two parties just because the parties papered the social duty giving rise to a tort claim into a contract—abundantly clear. Yet, many courts in Pennsylvania continue to misapply the doctrine.
In the March 9, 2023 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang wrote “Tort Claims Between 2 Contracting Parties May Overcome the Gist of Action Doctrine“
On Jan. 9, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument on whether the attorney-client privilege protects against disclosure of dual-purpose communications—where the communications contain both legal and nonlegal advice.
In the January 26, 2023 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Kelly Lavelle wrote “Impact of the Attorney-Client Privilege Purpose Requirement on E-Discovery” Continue reading ›
Recently, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has proposed a rule, which would ban the use of noncompetes almost completely and require existing noncompete agreements to be rescinded. This comes with inherent legal challenges and has a broad implication for employers in the business community and their litigators. Continue reading ›
Those plaintiffs counsel practicing in the Third Circuit should rejoice in knowing that RICO provides a powerful tool for creditors against debtors using fraudulent means to avoid paying.
In the January 5, 2023 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang wrote “Sophisticated Schemers Beware: Civil RICO Expands Creditors’ Arsenal” Continue reading ›
The Third Circuit has adopted a more plaintiff/relator friendly interpretation while the Eighth Circuit has reached the opposite conclusion. Until the U.S. Supreme Court settles the circuit split, choice of venue is key for those bringing claims under the Anti-Kickback statute.
In the December 1, 2022 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang and Kandis Kovalsky wrote “Fighting Fraud in Health Care Through the False Claims Act in the Third Circuit” Continue reading ›
A smart and tactical choice of venue can set the stage for victory, and in a False Claims Act case, that choice may make all the difference.
In the November 10, 2022 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang wrote “Circuit Split on Materiality Standard in FCA Cases and Choosing the Right Venue” Continue reading ›
In the October 2022 Edition of Taxpayers Against Fraud (TAF) Newsletter, Kandis Kovalsky wrote “Relator’s Share: What Is It? How Does It Work? What Is The Process?”
To incentivize whistleblowers to assist the Government in combatting fraud on the Government and its taxpayers, the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729, et seq. (the “FCA”) ensures that a whistleblower under the FCA (referred to as a “Relator”) receives at least 15 percent of the proceeds recovered by the Government in any action filed under the FCA by a Relator (referred to as a “qui tam” action). A Relator receives 15 percent of the proceeds of an FCA action just by causing a complaint to be filed; 15 percent is the minimum. Continue reading ›
Kang Haggerty News