Kang Haggerty NewsPennsylvania Bar Institute
Jacklyn Fetbroyt Named to 2017 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers’ Rising Star List
Kang Haggerty member Jacklyn Fetbroyt has been selected for inclusion in the 2017 Super Lawyers’ Rising Star list for Pennsylvania in the practice areas of Business and Corporate law. This is the sixth time Jackie has received this accolade.
Published by Thomson Reuters, Super Lawyers is a ranking of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Rising Stars is a list of the top up-and-coming attorneys in a state – either 40 years old or younger, or who has been practicing for 10 years or less.
Published annually, the selection process uses a patented process of peer nominations, independent research and peer evaluations in determining the list. No more than 2.5% of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team for the Super Lawyers’ Rising Star list. A description of the selection methodology can be found at http://www.superlawyers.com/about/selection_process.html.
“Act 170 Changes the Business Landscape in Pennsylvania” by Edward T. Kang | Legal Intelligencer
Act 170 Changes the Business Landscape in Pennsylvania
Act 170 effects significant change to the litigation landscape for both practitioners and LLC members. In this Legal Intelligencer publication, Edward Kang discusses the rights of a limited liability company (LLC) member to sue other members either directly or derivatively on behalf of the company. Continue reading ›
Construction Law Attorney Henry J. Donner Joins Kang Haggerty
Philadelphia, PA (April 3, 2017): Henry J. Donner, an accomplished construction law practitioner and formerly name shareholder at Jacoby Donner, has joined Kang Haggerty LLC (KH), a business litigation boutique with offices in Philadelphia, PA and Cherry Hill, NJ.
“While it is a bittersweet moment for me to see the dissolution of Jacoby Donner, it is with great excitement that I join a vibrant business litigation and transaction law firm in Philadelphia where my practice and clients can continue to thrive,” said Donner, who will be Of Counsel at Kang Haggerty.
Donner’s experience over nearly 40 years of practice includes counseling and representing those in the construction industry: real estate developers, condominium associations, contractors, subcontractors, architects/engineers, and construction contractor associations. His practice also includes real estate, estate planning & administration, multi-employer ERISA plans, and labor law.
Legal Intelligencer: Williams Indictment: Disappointing End to a Promising Start
by The YL Editorial Board
I (Think) I’m Ready for My First Trial. Do I want a Jury or Nonjury Trial?
In his April 2016 civil litigation column in The Legal Intelligencer and the Pennsylvania Law Weekly, Edward T. Kang discusses and compares the relative merits of jury and bench trials based on analysis of data and comparative studies on the outcome of cases categorized by choice of fact-finder. While jury trials may seem the norm according to the media, bench trial is the less publicized alternative that lawyers and their clients must also consider. Learn more about the consequences of this pivotal decision: jury or no jury? READ MORE
Jason Guss and David Scott Join Kang Haggerty
Philadelphia, PA (December 6, 2016): Kang Haggerty LLC, a business litigation boutique with offices in Philadelphia, PA and Cherry Hill, NJ is pleased to announce the addition of associates Jason Guss and David Scott.
Jason Guss concentrates his practice on a wide range of business transactional matters including entity formation, drafting internal documents, drafting business agreements, real estate transactions and tax issues. He earned his J.D. from the Rutgers University School of Law – Camden in 2014 after graduating with a Bachelor of Science degree from Pennsylvania State University. Jason gained valuable experience working as a judicial extern at the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and as a legal intern at Rutgers’ Civil Practice Clinic. Prior to joining Kang Haggerty, Jason worked for a national public accounting firm where he focused on tax consulting, tax compliance, and due diligence for mergers and acquisitions. He is admitted to the practice of law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
David Scott focuses on business litigation matters that include partnership disputes, contact disputes, civil RICO, and breach of fiduciary duty. He also devotes significant aspects of his practice to securities litigation, class action cases, and creditor’s rights. He earned his J.D. from the Wake Forest University School of Law, where he was a member of the Wake Forest Journal of Law and Policy. He graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree from Pennsylvania State University. While in law school, David gained experience in the Delaware County District Attorney’s Office and as a law clerk for Senior Judge Michael F. X. Coll on the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas. He is admitted to the practice of law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
The Legal Intelligencer’s Women in the Profession Roundtable
Kang Haggerty founding member Jacklyn Fetbroyt was invited to participate in The Legal Intelligencer’s Women in the Profession Roundtable, featured in the publication’s November 2016 “Top Women in Law” special supplement.
The roundtable, moderated by Morgan Lewis chair Jami McKeon, addressed issues that included recruitment and retention of female lawyers, gender equality issues, work-life balance and challenges facing women at law firms today.
The editorial staff of The Legal has always been aware that the hiring and retention of female attorneys is an ongoing issue in the legal community. In an effort to discuss some of the specific problems facing female attorneys and present potential solutions to those problems, we invited 11 practitioners to talk about how to bolster the role of women in the law. This year the panelists tackled issues such as work-life balance, equal pay and the lack of positive change and opportunities for women in the legal profession.
Class Action Rule Changes Are (Likely) Coming to Federal Courts
In August of this year, the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure released a preliminary draft of proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Perhaps the most notable of the proposed amendments are those relating to Rule 23, which governs class actions. Rule 23 has been substantively amended four times since its adoption in 1937, and most recently in 2003. The proposed amendments affect the following aspects of Rule 23: method of notice to class members, settlement approval, objections of class members to settlement and appeals.
Notice
The proposal includes an amendment to Rule 23(c)(2)(b) to clarify the proper methods of notice to class members of a class certified under Rule 23(b)(3) (common questions of law or fact predominate over those pertinent to only individual class members and the class action is superior to other forms of action). Currently, Rule 23(c)(2)(b) requires notice by “the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances,” which could plausibly be read to permit notice through electronic or other means. But many courts have stated that this subsection of the rule requires notice by first class mail. The proposed amendment would clear up this confusion by allowing notice to be perfected “by United States mail, electronic means, or other appropriate means.” This proposed amendment is meant to clarify that modern methods of communication, such as email and social media, are permissible means of providing notice to class members. The proposed amendment reflects the reality that many people do not check their U.S. mail as regularly as they used to before the advent of electronic mail.
Accountants Have No Duty of Care Toward Third-Party Investors, or Do They?
In 2001, Anderson was one of the “Big Five” public accounting firms. Founded by Arthur Anderson, whose motto was “think straight, talk straight.” The Anderson firm was one of the most respected accounting firms in the world. A year later, Anderson was found guilty of obstructing justice for destroying Enron’s financial documents. Anderson shut its doors in the United States that same year and surrendered its licenses to practice certified public accounting. A few years later, Anderson settled with various Enron investors who brought claims against Anderson for its role in the Enron fraud. Since the Enron/Anderson scandal, the law relating to an accountant’s duty to nonclients has changed.
Traditionally, an accountant owes no duty to a nonclient. For instance, an accountant who prepares a financial statement containing material misrepresentation would not be liable to a nonclient, such as a bank, who relied on the financial statement to its detriment. As seen in the Enron/Anderson case, however, the landscape of accountant liability is changing. If the accountant aided in the commission of the fraud, or where the accountant knew the third-party nonclient (e.g., a bank) would be relying on the statements, the accountant may be liable to the nonclient.