Kang Haggerty NewsBy the YL Editorial Board
Kang Haggerty at NAMWOLF 2019 Annual Meeting & Law Firm Expo
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.
Edward T. Kang
Legal Intelligencer: ‘T.M. v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals’—Lessons on Standards of Evidence
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.
Kang Haggerty’s Greg Mathews and Henry Donner Named to Best Lawyers in America© 2020
Gregory H. Mathews
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.
Legal Intelligencer: Jumping on the Partnership Track: Is it the Best Move for You?
By the YL Editorial Board
Legal Intelligencer: Jumping on the Partnership Track: Is it the Best Move for You?
By the YL Editorial Board
Webinar: The Complex Commercial Case in Arbitration
KHF 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.
Legal Intelligencer: What Young Lawyers Are Actually Doing to Relieve Stress
By the YL Editorial Board
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?