News » Publications

Articles Posted in Publications

|

Although Rule 408 does preclude some settlement evidence from being admitted in litigation, it is a mistake, and potentially a dangerous one, to believe that any documents or communications bearing the label of “For Settlement Purposes Only” will necessarily fall within the scope of Rule 408. Lawyers must have a clear understanding of the limitations to Rule 408’s protection of settlement evidence.

In the August 31, 2023 Edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang wrote “Not a Blanket Protection: Understanding Limits of Protections for Settlement Evidence“. Continue reading ›

|

Ethical issues in e-discovery arise due to the unique challenges and the complex nature of electronic data. The ethical challenges presented demand careful consideration and require lawyers to remain competent in emerging technology and the implications on e-discovery.

In the August 10, 2023 Edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Kelly Lavelle wrote “Beware of Ethical Issues in Today’s E-Discovery Landscape.” Continue reading ›

|

The Supreme Court recently issued its opinion in Yegiazaryan v. Smagin affirming the Ninth Circuit’s holding and providing RICO plaintiffs with a powerful tool against debtors employing fraudulent tactics to avoid payment.

In the July 20, 2023 Edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang wrote “Sophisticated Schemers Beware: Civil RICO Expands Creditors’ Arsenal—Part II.” 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 ›

| and

The statute does not define the term “resulting from,” which has led to differing interpretations of the causation standard required for an AKS violation to be considered a false claim under the FCA. The divergence of views among the circuit courts has created challenges for relators in proving causation. This column is part two of our earlier column relating to AKS and the causation standard.

In the June 15, 2023 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang and Kandis L. Kovalsky wrote “Fighting Fraud in Health Care Through the False Claims Act in the Third Circuit, Part 2“ Continue reading ›

|

ESI often contains confidential data, such as trade secrets, financial information, and personal data, and attorneys need to be aware of their obligations to protect this information and prevent unauthorized disclosure.

In the June 8, 2023 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Kelly A. Lavelle wrote “Safeguarding Data Privacy in the E-Discovery Process.” Continue reading ›

|

Not all indemnification and advancement rights are created equal. While many companies provide broad and mandatory advancement rights to covered persons, some companies provide permissive advancement rights.

In the May 18, 2023 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang wrote “Officers and Directors Should Seek Mandatory Advancement Provision“ 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 ›

|

Earlier last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in SodexoMAGIC v. Drexel University made this law—that the gist of the action doctrine does not bar a viable tort claim between two parties just because the parties papered the social duty giving rise to a tort claim into a contract—abundantly clear. Yet, many courts in Pennsylvania continue to misapply the doctrine.

In the March 9, 2023 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang wrote “Tort Claims Between 2 Contracting Parties May Overcome the Gist of Action Doctrine“

Continue reading ›

Contact Information
Philadelphia Office
123 S Broad St #1670
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 © 2023, Kang Haggerty LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design