News » Business Litigation and Dispute Resolution

Articles Posted in Business Litigation and Dispute Resolution

Practice Area

|

In Uber Technologies v. Simon & Simon, Judge Mark Kearney denied a motion to dismiss a RICO complaint filed by Uber and FedEx against the Philadelphia plaintiffs firm Simon & Simon, P.C. and a network of medical providers. The 54-page opinion charts how corporate defendants frame “systemic fraud” and what RICO plaintiffs must plead to survive a Rule 12 motion.

In the July 9, 2026 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang writes, “When the Lawyer Becomes the Defendant: RICO Comes for the Personal Injury Bar.” Continue reading ›

|

This technological shift has triggered a parallel evolution in law. The conversation now spans from reforming Rule 901 to proposing a new Federal Rule of Evidence 707 specifically for AI-generated evidence. Simultaneously, ethics regulators are clarifying that lawyer competence requires understanding these technologies.

In the January 7, 2026 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang writes, “Authenticity Under Pressure: Rethinking Rule 901 in the Age of AI.” Continue reading ›

|

A well-drafted ESI protocol defines production formats, metadata requirements, search terms, and privilege review procedures, reducing disputes and helping discovery move forward efficiently.

In the November 20, 2025 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Kelly Lavelle writes, “Understanding and Applying Local Rules When Drafting ESI Protocols.” Continue reading ›

|

Lawyers accustomed to relying on experience-based experts must now make the analytical path explicit. Credibility and cross-examination alone could rescue a thin factual basis or an implicit chain of reasoning. Admissibility is no longer a late-stage checkpoint. It is a threshold gate, and lawyers must plan accordingly from the outset of a case.

In the November 20, 2025 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang writes, “Method, Not Mystique: The Renewed Demands of Rule 702.” Continue reading ›

|

Offers of judgment encourage settlement by shifting litigation risks to the party that refuses a reasonable settlement offer, thus forcing the party to carefully assess whether proceeding to trial is worth the financial risk. Offers of judgment, if used properly, can provide strategic leverage in negotiations and serve as a decisive tool in bringing cases to a more efficient resolution.

In the March 20, 2025 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang writes, “Shifting the Balance: Use Offer of Judgment in Litigation.” Continue reading ›

|

Each country has its own business sensibilities, many of which are more focused on interpersonal relationships or norms that do not always line up with the United States’ more formalistic business practices.

In the February 6, 2025 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Kyle Garabedian writes, “EB-5 Immigration Investor Program: a Win-Win Program, or Is It?” Continue reading ›

|

Some recent cases, such as Yegiazaryan v. Smagin and Medical Marijuana v. Horn, show that the courts are grappling with the statute’s injury requirement and might expand the sense of hope for plaintiffs.

In the November 7, 2024 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang writes, “Civil RICO’s Expanding Reach: From Foreign Schemes to Lost Employment.” Continue reading ›

|

Civil RICO is seen as “the litigation equivalent of a thermonuclear device,” and civil RICO claims are often employed in complex, high-stakes litigation.

In the July 5, 2024 Edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang writes, “From Mobsters to Fraudsters: Clearing the Bar for Civil RICO Claims.” Continue reading ›

|

As a growing body of academic literature asserts, noncompetes are restraints against competition, and they are harmful to both employees and the economy. As one of the major levers that the federal government has over the economy, antitrust laws can provide significant deterrence to abuse of noncompetes by employers.

In the May 17, 2024 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang wrote, “FTC Ban on Noncompetes: Antitrust Implications of Agreements.”

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

California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) Opt-Out IconYour Privacy Choices Cookie Policy Manage Cookies

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