News » Kandis Kovalsky

Archives

| and

While suing individual owners, officers, or directors alongside their corporate entities can work to a plaintiff’s advantage, this strategy carries a distinct risk: juries may personalize the corporate defendants, leading to smaller verdicts.

In the March 26, 2026 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang and Kandis Kovalsky co-authored, “Taking a Plaintiff’s Case to the Next Level, Part II: It Does Not Always Take Two—Why Naming Individuals as Defendants Is Not Always the Best Strategy.” Continue reading ›

| and

Strategic practitioners do not need to treat entity liability as the finish line; they may treat it as a starting point. Holding individual owners or officers personally liable—whether as partners, corporate actors, alter egos, or signatories—fundamentally alters the litigation landscape.

In the February 19, 2026 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang and Kandis Kovalsky co-authored, “Taking a Plaintiff’s Case to the Next Level: Holding Individuals Liable Under Pennsylvania Law.” Continue reading ›

| and

The False Claims Act (FCA) can be a powerful tool to protect veteran health care in the wake of an uptick in private equity’s participation in the sector, in that it is now well-established that private equity companies and their principals can be held liable under the FCA.

In the October 23, 2025 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang and Kandis L. Kovalsky co-authored, “The False Claims Act (FCA) can be a powerful tool to protect veteran health care in the wake of an uptick in private equity’s participation in the sector, in that it is now well-established that private equity companies and their principals can be held liable under the FCA.” Continue reading ›

|

The TAF Coalition, a public interest, non-profit organization dedicated to defending and empowering whistleblowers who expose fraud on the government and the financial markets, recently published a primer on understanding Touhy requests by Kang Haggerty member Kandis Kovalsky. Continue reading ›

| and

Courts will likely be grappling with questions regarding cryptocurrency for years to come—with the results from the suits against Binance and Coinbase potentially serving as guiding precedent in answering those questions.

In the July 6, 2023 Edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang and Kandis L. Kovalsky co-authored, “Emerging ‘Securities’ Litigation in Cryptocurrency.” Continue reading ›

|

 On June 1, 2023, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion (authored by Justice Clarence Thomas), providing a long-awaited answer to the question of whether, under the Federal Claims Act (“FCA”), a defendant “knowingly” submits a false claim by reporting its retail cash price as its “usual and customary price” rather than the lower and more-common price offered through discount programs. The Seventh Circuit twice held that such reporting is not a “knowingly” false claim under the FCA because “a reasonable person” could reach a similar interpretation of “usual and customary price.” United States v. Supervalu Inc., 9 F.4th 455 (7th Cir. 2021); United States ex rel. Proctor v. Safeway, Inc., 30 F.4th 649 (7th Cir. 2022). The Supreme Court vacated the Seventh Circuit’s judgments and ruled that the FCA scienter requirement refers to a defendant’s knowledge and subjective beliefs – not to what an objectively reasonable person may have known or believed. United States ex rel. Shutte v. SuperValu Inc., 598 U.S. (2023) The Court also determined that facially ambiguous language is not a sufficient reason to prohibit a finding that a defendant knew its claims were false.  Continue reading ›

| and

The Supreme Court is taking up two U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit cases where rulings shielded both food-and-pharmacy chains from FCA liability for alleged improper billing involving prescription drugs. If the high court sides with the Seventh Circuit, the impending result could mean an exponential loss of taxpayer money.

In the April 13, 2023 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang and Kandis Kovalsky wrote “When Is Knowing ‘Knowing’ in FCA Cases? High Court Examines Two Cases“

Continue reading ›

| and

The Third Circuit has adopted a more plaintiff/relator friendly interpretation while the Eighth Circuit has reached the opposite conclusion. Until the U.S. Supreme Court settles the circuit split, choice of venue is key for those bringing claims under the Anti-Kickback statute.

In the December 1, 2022 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang and Kandis Kovalsky wrote “Fighting Fraud in Health Care Through the False Claims Act in the Third Circuit” Continue reading ›

|

TAF (Taxpayers Against Fraud) Logo and Article Title on slate blue backgroundIn the October 2022 Edition of Taxpayers Against Fraud (TAF) Newsletter, Kandis Kovalsky wrote “Relator’s Share: What Is It? How Does It Work? What Is The Process?”

To incentivize whistleblowers to assist the Government in combatting fraud on the Government and its taxpayers, the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729, et seq. (the “FCA”) ensures that a whistleblower under the FCA (referred to as a “Relator”) receives at least 15 percent of the proceeds recovered by the Government in any action filed under the FCA by a Relator (referred to as a “qui tam” action). A Relator receives 15 percent of the proceeds of an FCA action just by causing a complaint to be filed; 15 percent is the minimum. Continue reading ›

|

Back of person's head looking at video call on laptop

In the April 2021 Young Lawyers Issue of Law Practice Today, Kandis Kovalsky wrote “Zoom Court Appearances: Rising to the Occasion While Seated”

On March 13, 2020, a national emergency was declared in the United States as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Instantly, courts across the country were shuttered. Many courts, particularly the federal courts, quickly rallied and embraced Zoom as a means to continue to hold hearings and move the many criminal and civil cases on their dockets. Some lawyers reveled in the courts’ embracement of Zoom, as the legal profession is often criticized as being somewhat of a dinosaur. Others were initially less excited about having to use a webcam and embrace modern technology, and while appearing in court, no less. Indeed, some lawyers even exclaimed that using Zoom (e.g., the technology) is more stressful than participating in the hearing itself. Continue reading ›

Contact Information
Philadelphia Office
123 S Broad St #1950
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Phone: (215) 525-5850
New Jersey Office
10000 Lincoln Dr E #201
Marlton, NJ 08053
Phone: (856) 266-9330
We serve clients throughout the Delaware Valley including, but not limited to, those in the following localities: Pennsylvania including Berks County, Bucks County, Chester County, Delaware County, Montgomery County, and Philadelphia County; New Jersey including Atlantic County, Burlington County, Camden County, Cape May County, Cumberland County, Gloucester County, Salem County, and Mercer County; Delaware including Kent County and New Castle County; and Maryland including Cecil County. We also serve clients in New York. View More

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2026, Kang Haggerty LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design