Best Lawyers 2020 BadgeKang Haggerty LLC has received national recognition for its Construction Law practice in the U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” 2020. In addition, the firm received a tier 2 rating in Philadelphia for commercial litigation and construction law.

This marks the 10th year of the collaboration between U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers®, in releasing the “Best Law Firms” rankings. To be eligible for a ranking, a firm must first have a lawyer recognized in The Best Lawyers in America©, which recognizes the top 5% of private practicing lawyers in the United States. The 2020 rankings are based on the highest number of participating firms and client votes received on record. Almost 16,000 lawyers provided more than 1,229,000 law firm assessments, and more than 12,000 clients participated providing 107,000 evaluations.

For more information, please visit https://bestlawfirms.usnews.com/. For details on the methodology used, please visit https://bestlawfirms.usnews.com/methodology.aspx.

In the November 7, 2019 edition of The Legal Intelligencer Edward T. Kang, managing member of Kang Haggerty wrote “When to Hire Outside Lawyers to Conduct an Internal Investigation.”

The call for an internal investigation, not unique in the wake of the #MeToo movement, is not simply confined to the media and entertainment industries—although we may know more about them due to the high profile of many of those involved.

Recently, a number of high-profile female journalists associated with NBC News called for its parent company, Comcast, to begin an internal investigation to address alleged sexual harassment within the news network’s workplace. As one of the country’s most successful corporations, Comcast, based here in Philadelphia, is faced with a need duplicated by many Fortune 500 companies—hiring outside counsel to investigate an internal matter.

Megyn Kelly and Gretchen Carlson, key figures in exposing the decades of misconduct by the late Roger Ailes, have been vocal in their support of the need for an internal investigation. In that case, Fox failed to address complaints aimed at the former chair and CEO of Fox News. The allegations detailed in Ronan Farrow’s current best seller, “Catch and Kill,” not only reveals the depth of the issues, but highlights the potential damage to the profile of a successful business. The letter signed by Kelly and Carlson reiterated claims of a “corporate culture of widespread sexual harassment and abuse.”

The call for an internal investigation, not unique in the wake of the #MeToo movement, is not simply confined to the media and entertainment industries—although we may know more about them due to the high profile of many of those involved. Continue reading ›

When ALM’s The Legal Intelligencer, also published online at Law.com, convened their annual Roundtable Discussion on Diversity and Inclusion efforts, they turned to Kang Haggerty LLC (KH) managing member Edward T. Kang to serve as moderator.

The roundtable originally appeared in the October 15, 2019 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, and is available to read online at Law.com.

Besides his own first-hand experiences as a diverse lawyer, and leader of a minority-owned law firm in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Kang and his firm are active members of the National Association of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms (NAMWOLF). Kang Haggerty is also certified as a Minority-Owned Business Enterprise by the Eastern Minority Supplier Development Council.

NAPABA-300x300Kang Haggerty managing member Edward T. Kang and associate Kandis L. Kovalsky are both presenters at an upcoming CLE on emerging issues in Emoji Law as part of the 2019 National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) Annual Convention, taking place in Austin, Texas, November 7-10. They will be joined by Elaine Edralin Pascua of TrueBlue, Inc. and Carolyn Enciso Sieve of Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP. Ireno A. Reuss III will serve as moderator. The program will take place on Friday, November 8th from 1:30 – 2:45 PM.

Emoji use is increasing, and courts—like us—are learning how to interpret them in the context of a trial, in the workplace, and in a plethora of practice areas. Continue reading ›

In the October 17, 2019 edition of The Legal Intelligencer Edward T. Kang, managing member of Kang Haggerty wrote “A Piece of the Tort(e): Tortious Interference With Expectancy of Inheritance.”

While recently gaining traction in both the public eye and the legal field, the claim of tortious interference with expectancy of inheritance is actually quite old and its interpretations vary among different jurisdictions, including in Pennsylvania.

Recently, a potential client came to me with the claim that his sibling was guilty of tortious interference with expectancy of inheritance. Although I decided not to take on the client for several reasons, his correspondence brought to my attention a twist in the traditional tortious interference claim. While recently gaining traction in both the public eye and the legal field, the claim of tortious interference with expectancy of inheritance is actually quite old and its interpretations vary among different jurisdictions, including in Pennsylvania. Continue reading ›

Kang Haggerty LLC Members Edward T. Kang and Jacklyn Fetbroyt, along with Associate Kandis L. Kovalsky, are attending the 2019 National Association of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms (“NAMWOLF”) Annual Meeting & Law Firm Expo.

If you are attending the NAMWOLF Annual Meeting, or find yourself in the greater L.A. area, come by to say hello to Edward, Jackie and Kandis.

ETK-Head-Shot-2018-200x300

Edward T. Kang

In the September 5, 2019 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang, Managing Member of Kang Haggerty wrote “‘T.M. v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals’ – Lessons on Standards of Evidence.”

The value of the reinstatement of T.M. v. Janssen for lawyers is that it clarifies laws about evidence, how courts determine evidence’s reliability, and general lessons on procedural law.

Last month, the Pennsylvania Superior Court reinstated a case concerning the drug Risperdal, which had initially been dismissed mid-trial in 2016. Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceutical’s drug, Risperdal, is currently the subject of thousands of suits alleging that the drug directly caused gynecomastia in many young men.

Headshot of Gregory H. Mathews

Gregory H. Mathews

Headshot of Henry J. Donner

Henry J. Donner

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.

Webinar-FlyerKHF managing member Edward T. Kang and associate Kandis L. Kovalsky are both faculty members for the upcoming webinar, “The Complex Commercial Case in Arbitration,” sponsored by the American Bar Association Young Lawyers Division Litigation Committee as part of the ABA YLD’s 2019 Litigation Week webinar series. The July 22nd program will take place from 1-2 pm ET and is free of charge and open to the public, but does require advance registration. Kovalsky will serve as program moderator. Kang, a litigator and AAA arbitrator, will serve on a panel discussion that will tackle difficult questions such as how does the arbitration forum balance giving the parties access to enough discovery for a fair hearing while maintaining its core principles of efficiency? What happens when one party wants thorough discovery and another does not? Register for this free webinar here.

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 ›

Contact Information