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 ›
A smart and tactical choice of venue can set the stage for victory, and in a False Claims Act case, that choice may make all the difference.
In the November 10, 2022 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang wrote “Circuit Split on Materiality Standard in FCA Cases and Choosing the Right Venue” Continue reading ›
In 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 ›
In the October 13, 2022 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang wrote “The Great Pandemic Heist: Attorneys’ Role in Fighting PPP Loan Fraud”
In the COVID-19 era, there has been a heist of great value, but it has not gone undetected. Prosecutors have called the heist the largest fraud in U.S. history, with the thieves stealing hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer money through fraudulently obtained Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans.
The “good” thieves are able to abscond with tremendously valuable items while remaining undetected. They take care to cover their tracks, to make sure any witnesses are silenced, and to financially clean the ill-gotten goods as quickly as possible. In the COVID-19 era, there has been a heist of great value, but it has not gone undetected. Prosecutors have called the heist the largest fraud in U.S. history, with the thieves stealing hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer money through fraudulently obtained Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans. The thieves’ plan to line their pockets was fairly simple: steal the money that the government was doling out to help buoy the economy during the throes of the pandemic. They took advantage of the government’s urgent loan dispersal to those who required immediate help. But the thieves could not resist showing off their looted wealth. They began purchasing flashy and expensive Lamborghinis, beautiful beachfront houses, and spending large amounts in cash. The careless and reckless nature of the heist has proven to be its undoing, and now the U.S. government is coming to take back what was stolen—although they are not acting alone.
An examination of the processes often undertaken to dismiss cases before trial, and the lasting effects that a decline in jury trials may have on the American legal system at large.
In the September 22, 2022 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang wrote “The Disappearing Jury Trial and Its Affect on the American Legal System.” Continue reading ›
Throughout the past decade, the country has been battling a raging epidemic and public health crisis: opioid addiction. In 2021, over 80,000 people died from opioid overdoses. Pennsylvania has one of the highest rates of opioid overdose deaths in the country. The crisis in Pennsylvania is so severe that it is decreasing the life expectancy in the commonwealth.
In the July 29, 2022 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang wrote “Individual Liability in the Opioid Epidemic: An Examination of Recent Developments.” Continue reading ›
Practitioners should anticipate when a witness will invoke the privilege and how to deal with or use such invocation applying the principles of fairness and reliability.
In the June 30, 2022 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang wrote “Nonparty Witness Invoking the Fifth Amendment Privilege in a Civil Case.” Continue reading ›
Beyond the substantive legal matters at issue, one procedural aspect of the trial has also generated significant attention; namely, that the entire proceeding was livestreamed for the public. We discuss below the pros and cons of such coverage, the history of recording devices in courtrooms, as well as provide recommendations for balancing the countervailing concerns at issue.
In the June 16, 2022 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang co-authored, “‘Depp v. Heard’: Public Trials and the Social Media Era.” Continue reading ›
Because veil piercing is a highly fact-intensive inquiry, it can be difficult to predict in advance when a court will grant such a remedy. This is because, in addition to the multi-factor analysis that often goes into the decision of whether to pierce, there are also a variety of different forms that veil piercing can take.
In the May 12, 2022 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang of Kang Haggerty co-authored “Enterprise Liability and When to Seek Piercing the Corporate Veil, Part II.” Continue reading ›
In the April 14, 2022 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang of Kang Haggerty co-authored “Anticipation and Preparation: The Scope of the Pa. Work-Product Doctrine.”
The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure are modeled after their federal counterparts and share much of the same language. Both contain provisions codifying the attorney work-product doctrine, and both use the phrase “prepared in anticipation of litigation” in defining the scope of this privilege. Despite this seemingly similar language, however, a stark distinction has emerged between the two. Continue reading ›
Kang Haggerty News