Pennsylvania Tag Archives — Page 3 of 5

Legal Intelligencer: Piercing the Corporate Veil Under Pennsylvania Law

June 26, 2019 | Edward T. Kang

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?

May 16, 2019 | Edward T. Kang

What happens when a dispute is between or among directors of the same company? Can the company use the attorney-client privilege to shield corporate materials, including any attorney-client privileged materials against a director?

Kang Haggerty’s Henry Donner again recognized as Senior Statesman for Construction Law in 2019 Chambers USA

April 26, 2019 | Kang Haggerty LLC

Henry Donner, Of Counsel

Kang Haggerty LLC, a boutique business litigation firm with offices in Philadelphia, PA and Marlton, NJ, is proud to once again congratulate Henry Donner, Of Counsel, named the Senior Statesman for construction lawyers in Pennsylvania in the 2019 edition of Chambers USA.

As the only senior statesman for the construction law practice in the state, Chambers USA calls Donner an “Excellent lawyer…a seasoned expert in the construction community. His clients include developers, condominium associations, contractors, subcontractors and design professionals. They appreciate his abilities to ‘cut to the heart of the problem and not get sidetracked’ and ‘to listen to what your needs are and act accordingly.’

Legal Intelligencer: Defending Officers and Directors From a Lawsuit by the Company

January 7, 2019 | Edward T. Kang

In the January 3, 2019 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang, Managing Member of Kang Haggerty wrote “Defending Officers and Directors From a Lawsuit by the Company.”

When a corporate director or officer is sued by a third party for alleged misconduct carried out in her capacity as director/officer, the company generally indemnifies the director/officer by defending her against the lawsuit. The company’s duty of indemnification arises from both the law and governing corporate documents (e.g., articles of incorporation, bylaws or employment agreement). While there are limited exceptions to the company’s duty of indemnification—e.g., the director/officer acted in her personal capacity or that she acted in bad faith against the interest of the company—the duty of indemnification is broad. The company must defend the director/officer, at least until the court determines otherwise. What protection does a corporate director/officer have, however, if the person suing her is the company itself?

A company sues its officer or director more frequently than many people think. The company could bring a direct lawsuit against an officer or director for a breach of fiduciary duty (e.g., alleged self-dealing). Sometimes, a shareholder could bring a derivative lawsuit under the company’s name against the officer or director. Continue reading ›

Legal Intelligencer: Pa. Law Firms Must Learn From the Past to Improve Diversity in the Future

December 12, 2018 | Kang Haggerty LLC

In the December 11, 2018 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Tianna K. Kalogerakis, Associate of Kang Haggerty authored “Pa. Law Firms Must Learn From the Past to Improve Diversity in the Future.”

After nearly 175 years, there is still much progress to be made in law firm diversity. The Philadelphia legal community should not underestimate the impact changing institutions has on creating opportunity for individuals.

A mere four years after The Legal Intelligencer’s founding in 1843, the story of blacks seeking admission to the legal profession in Pennsylvania began. Despite nearly 175 years of black Pennsylvania lawyers overcoming obstacles to entry of the legal profession, institutional barriers persist, leaving blacks and other minorities in the state still in search of meaningful access in the legal profession. In 2018, law firms that are not intentional about cultivating diversity may be unintentionally discriminating against diverse candidates.

To tell the story of diversity in the legal profession—specifically when discussing the black lawyer—one must first acknowledge the role of slavery in America. People of color were held in bondage for decades against their will and the ownership of humans by other humans was sanctioned by the laws of this country. Enslavement and discrimination of individuals based on their skin color was codified into our federal and state systems of government and dictated the daily interactions of individuals. These codifications and the resulting caste system became the foundations of the institutional barriers minorities continue to face today. Continue reading ›

Have the Courts Made Room for Inevitability Under the Defend Trade Secrets Act?

November 29, 2018 | Edward T. Kang and Kandis Kovalsky

In the November 29, 2018 edition of The Legal Intelligencer Edward Kang, Managing Member of Kang Haggerty and Kandis Kovalsky, Associate of Kang Haggerty, co-authored “Have the Courts Made Room for Inevitability Under the Defend Trade Secrets Act?”

The Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), 18 U.S.C. Section 1836, et seq., which was enacted on May 11, 2016, after a Senate vote of 87-0, is the first federal law to protect trade secrets. The rare unanimous vote was unsurprising given the stunning report by the Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property that outlined how theft of intellectual property costs U.S. businesses more than $300 billion a year.

The DTSA highlighted Congress’ goal of aligning the federal law closely with the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), which has been adopted in some form in almost every state. Just as the Lanham Act, which coexists with state trademark law, the DTSA coexists with state trade secret law. As such, it is important to understand this interplay and what it is likely to look like going forward. Continue reading ›

Legal Intelligencer: When Noncompete Agreements Involve Competing Laws

November 8, 2018 | Edward T. Kang and Kandis Kovalsky

In the November 8, 2018 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang, Managing Member of Kang Haggerty and Kandis Kovalsky, Associate of Kang Haggerty, co-authored “When Noncompete Agreements Involve Competing Laws.”

These days, it is common for companies headquartered or principally located in one city and state to have multiple offices and employees throughout many cities and states in the country, and even the world. Companies in this position will often require their employees to sign contracts with both forum selection clauses and choice of law provisions. The forum selected is usually where the company is headquartered or principally located. Likewise, the choice of law provision often calls for application of the laws of the forum state. Companies have a strong interest in uniformity and predictability when it comes to legal disputes. Litigating matters in different courts throughout the country under different laws is not something that is desirable or productive.

In situations where employers also make their employees, or certain employees, agree to restrictive covenants, particularly noncompetes, companies expect the same uniformity and predictability regarding their enforceability as to each employee, regardless of where the employee works or lives. Employees, on the other hand, often expect (as we learned through a recent case) that even with another state’s choice of law provision, they will still be afforded the protection of the laws of their own state. This disconnect is no clearer than where non-California headquartered companies hire California residents as employees and require them to sign noncompetes governed by another state’s law. In California, noncompete agreements are generally unenforceable (with some limited exceptions). This is well-known, particularly by California residents. So, what happens in this situation if the California employee violates their noncompete? Continue reading ›

Associates Tianna Kalogerakis and Kandis Kovalsky Participate in Law Week 2018

June 21, 2018 | Kandis Kovalsky

Law Day, as officially recognized by the President of the United States on the first of May each year, is a day to reflect on the importance of law in our society and its role in our country’s foundation. In particular, it is a celebration of the rights and benefits afforded to United States citizens under the Constitution.

This year, the American Bar Association Law Day Theme was “Separation of Powers: Framework for Freedom.” The ABA described this year’s theme as follows:

The U.S. Constitution sets out a system of government with distinct and independent branches—Congress, the Presidency, and a Supreme Court. It also defines legislative, executive, and judicial powers and outlines how they interact. These three separate branches share power, and each branch serves as a check on the power of the others. “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition,” James Madison explained in Federalist 51. Why? Madison believed that the Constitution’s principles of separation of powers and checks and balances preserve political liberty. They provide a framework for freedom. Yet, this framework is not self-executing. We the people must continually act to ensure that our constitutional democracy endures, preserving our liberties and advancing our rights. The Law Day 2018 theme enables us to reflect on the separation of powers as fundamental to our constitutional purpose and to consider how our governmental system is working for ourselves and our posterity.

The Philadelphia Bar Association extends the celebration of Law Day to encompass an entire week. The Young Lawyers Division coordinates programs throughout the city with various schools and communities. These programs include Lawyer for a Day, Fairy-tale Mock Trials, Legal Advice Live, and Lawyers in the Classroom. Continue reading ›

Kang Haggerty’s Henry Donner recognized as Senior Statesman for Construction Law in 2018 Chambers USA Rankings

May 8, 2018 | Kang Haggerty LLC

Kang Haggerty LLC, a boutique business litigation firm with offices in Philadelphia, PA and Cherry Hill, NJ, congratulates Henry Donner, Of Counsel, for once again being selected among the top ranked construction lawyers in Pennsylvania in the 2018 edition of Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business.

One of only two Senior Statesmen named for the practice area in Pennsylvania, Chambers calls Donner, “A veteran construction lawyer who is called upon for his deep knowledge and keen insights in contract negotiations, design error issues and labor and employment matters.”

JFRE Hosts Mayor Kenney

April 12, 2018 | Kang Haggerty LLC

Image from Hines, Owner & Developer

On Wednesday, March 14, 2018, the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia’s Real Estate affinity group (JFRE) hosted Mayor Kenney and Seth Shapiro, COO of The Goldenberg Group and Chairman of the Board of Philadelphia Gas Works, to discuss the City of Philadelphia’s 2019 fiscal Budget and its impacts on the City’s businesses and real estate industry. The event took place at the brand new luxury apartment building located at 1213 Walnut Street. Shapiro and Kenney discussed the following:

Improving educational outcomes and workforce readiness
Improving the Philadelphia school system and increasing wages
Increasing Philadelphia property taxes
Increasing Philadelphia’s realty transfer tax