Kang Haggerty NewsThe Legal Intelligencer
Kang Haggerty and Voorhees Business Association – Annual Bowling Fundraiser
Kang Haggerty LLC is pleased to announce our sponsorship of Voorhees Business Association’s Annual Bowling Fundraiser.
The 2016 VBA Bowling Fundraiser will be held on Friday, April 8, 2106 at The Big Event, located at 1536 Kings Hwy N., Cherry Hill, NJ 08034.
Bowling lanes will be available for individuals and groups with a maximum of six (6) bowlers per lane for two hours (from 6PM to 8PM). In addition, there will be a silent auction hosted by Tri State Sports Memorabilia.
Attendees are encouraged to show support by committing to the various donations listed below: Continue reading ›
Kang Haggerty Victory: $2.25M Judgement for Vizant Technologies
On March 22, 2016, Kang Haggerty client Vizant Technologies received a $2.25 million judgment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
In the case, Vizant Technologies, LLC, et al. v. Julie P. Whitechurch, et al., Vizant asserted claims for breach of contract, defamation, and tortious interference with existing and prospective business relationships.
The Legal Intelligencer: Kang on M&As and Attorney-Client Privilege of Selling Corporations
In Edward Kang’s March 2016 civil litigation column in The Legal Intelligencer and the Pennsylvania Law Weekly, he writes on the issue of M&As and Attorney-Client Privilege of Selling Corporations.
Courts have long recognized that the attorney-client privilege extends to corporations, as in Upjohn v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981). Because a corporation can act only through its agents, usually officers, a corporation’s attorney-client privilege generally applies to communications between the corporation’s authorized agents and counsel. As the U.S. Supreme Court explained in Upjohn, however, it is the corporation that holds the corporate attorney-client privilege, not individual officers.
The Legal Intelligencer’s Top Laterals/New Partners Supplement: Kang on Lateral Hiring and the Small, Boutique Law Firm
“Thinking about making a lateral move to a small, boutique law firm? Recruiting successful laterals is critical to any firm’s success, regardless of size, and firms consider many factors in making a lateral hire. But for a small, boutique firm, a lateral hire will have an immediate impact. While big law firms can hire in large numbers and count on the laws of attrition to weed out the good from the bad hires, it is critical that small, boutique firms make the right calls—for the sake of both the law firm and the lateral,” writes Edward Kang in an article on lateral hiring as part of The Legal Intelligencer’s Top Laterals/New Partners supplement.
In the feature, Edward addresses some of the considerations to keep in mind when comparing a small, boutique law firm to a big firm; the importance of understanding the business of law; and the need for an appropriate business plan. Learn more about what Kang Haggerty looks for in a lateral and what a lateral should consider from a jump to a new law firm…READ MORE
Lateral Hiring and the Small, Boutique Law Firm
The Legal Intelligencer
PA Law Weekly: Kang on CFAA and its impact on employer-employee litigation
PA Law Weekly: Kang on CFAA and its impact on employer-employee litigation
January 30, 2016
Throughout 2016, Edward Kang will be a regular contributor to the Pennsylvania Law Weekly and The Legal Intelligencer on civil litigation issues impacting attorneys throughout the state. This month he writes on the topic of the CFAA and its impact on employer-employee litigation.
CFAA: Its Impact on Employer-Employee Litigation
PA Law Weekly
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds That CASPA Does Not Apply Where The Owner Is A Government Entity
In Clipper Pipe & Serv., Inc. v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Co., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act, 73 P.S. §§ 501-506 (“CASPA”), does not apply to construction projects where the owner is a government entity.
The United States Department of the Navy had entered into an agreement with Contracting Systems, Inc. II (“CSI”) for the construction of an addition to, and renovations of, a training center in Lehigh Valley. CSI, in turn, subcontracted with Clipper Pipe & Service, Inc. (“Clipper”) to perform heating, ventilation, and air conditioning work. When CSI failed to pay Clipper per the terms of their agreement, Clipper filed suit against CSI and its surety, the Ohio Casualty Insurance Company (“OCIC”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
OCIC and CSI moved for summary judgment contending that CASPA does not apply to public works projects because a government entity does not qualify as an “owner” under CASPA. CASPA defines an “owner” as “[a] person who has an interest in real property that is improved and who ordered the improvement to be made.” “Person” is defined as “[a] corporation, partnership, business trust, other association, estate, trust foundation or a natural individual.” According to CSI and OCIC, government bodies cannot be “owners” under CASPA because the word “government” does not appear in the definition – i.e., a government body is not an “association” and therefore not a “person” or “owner.” Further, OCIC and CSI argued that the Prompt Payment Act (“PPA”), not CASPA, addresses public works projects. OCIC and CSI argued that given the substantial differences between CASPA and PPA, it would be untenable if both applied simultaneously.
How to Protect the Reputation of Your Small Business
Philadelphia Business Journal