Gregory H. Mathews
Henry J. Donner
Kang Haggerty is pleased to announce that Gregory H. Mathews (Commercial Litigation) and Henry J. Donner (Construction Law) have been selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America© 2020, recognized for excellence in their respective practices for the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania market.
KHF managing member Edward T. Kang and associate Kandis L. Kovalsky are both faculty members for the upcoming webinar, “The Complex Commercial Case in Arbitration,” sponsored by the American Bar Association Young Lawyers Division Litigation Committee as part of the ABA YLD’s 2019 Litigation Week webinar series. The July 22nd program will take place from 1-2 pm ET and is free of charge and open to the public, but does require advance registration. Kovalsky will serve as program moderator. Kang, a litigator and AAA arbitrator, will serve on a panel discussion that will tackle difficult questions such as how does the arbitration forum balance giving the parties access to enough discovery for a fair hearing while maintaining its core principles of efficiency? What happens when one party wants thorough discovery and another does not? Register for this free webinar here.
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).
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 ›
Tianna Kalogerakis, Associate at Kang Haggerty
It takes time for a new attorney to gain the experience necessary to be competent on specific areas of law. Once new attorneys gain that experience, often they are the least senior voice on a given topic and public speaking opportunities are afforded to more tenured attorneys with expertise.
A lack of expertise on a subject matter does not however, preclude newer attorneys from participating in public speaking events. Namely, newer or junior attorneys need not be experts to competently moderate a panel discussion or publicly interview an expert on a given subject area, and these opportunities can raise the profile of a newer attorney. These opportunities are of particular significance for minorities who are often underrepresented in the legal profession. Seasoned attorneys who are mentors or sponsors to junior attorneys should seek to “place” their mentees in these moderator or interviewer roles to increase a group’s recognition of the new attorney as these roles often are accompanied by promotional materials or articles summarizing the event and can be featured on the junior associate’s profile.
I have twice had the opportunity to moderate panel discussions; once as a member of the Temple Law Alumni Women’s Leadership Initiative, and a second time at the 2019 Philly SHRM Symposium. Both times, these opportunities were presented to me through my longtime sponsor and friend Sheryl Axelrod, Esquire who is a diversity expert. Continue reading ›
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.’
In the April 11, 2019 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang, Managing Member of Kang Haggerty wrote “Attorney-Client Privilege and Abuse of Privilege.”
The attorney-client privilege, the oldest evidentiary privilege known to the common law, is an exception to one of the main policies behind the paramount rule of evidence that relevant evidence is admissible at trial. In this regard, the attorney-client privilege is an obstruction to the search for the truth. The privilege protects confidential attorney-client communications made for the purposes of obtaining legal advice. While many attorney-client communications are confidential, they are not privileged unless they were made for obtaining legal advice. The attorney-client privilege is designed to facilitate free attorney-client communications without the fear of unwanted disclosure so that clients can receive competent legal advice from their lawyers. Continue reading ›
We are often asked by our clients for non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements (often referred to as NDAs) in the transactional setting as well as in litigation settlement agreements – but what if the employment contract or settlement includes provisions regarding a discrimination claim?
Effective as of March 18, 2019 in New Jersey, lawyers must be wary of employment or settlement agreements that include any provision that “has the purpose or effect of concealing the details relating to a claim of discrimination, retaliation or harassment.” If a provision is contained in a settlement agreement to which the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) applies, it is unenforceable against the employee. If the employee chooses to reveal claim specifics in a way that the employer is “reasonably identifiable,” the employer may likewise reveal formerly confidential information. In fact, such settlement agreements must contain a bold, prominently placed notice that “although the parties may have agreed to keep the settlement and underlying facts confidential, such a provision in an agreement is unenforceable against the employer if the employee publicly reveals sufficient details of the claim so that the employer is reasonably identifiable.” Continue reading ›
On April 18, 2019, Kang Haggerty member Jackie Fetbroyt will be a featured speaker for NBI’s Business Contracts in 10 Simple Steps for the National Business Institute. The CLE will take place at the Hilton Garden Inn Philadelphia Center City, 1100 Arch Street, from 9 am until 4:30 pm.
In this comprehensive seminar on business contracts, you’ll get real-world pointers on how to draft, review and negotiate business contracts in 10 simple steps. Acquire the skills you need to avoid risk, minimize liabilities, ensure enforceability and maximize protections. Don’t miss out on this practical program that will equip you with the foundational aspects of contracts every business attorney needs to know. Continue reading ›
“As part of my business divorce practice, I often represent one owner against other owners. People who may have once been close friends or family members now turn into ugly, bitter enemies. What started as a company with shared goals and vision has dissipated into a pool of litigation,” writes Kang Haggerty managing member Edward T. Kang in the March 2019 edition of the American Bar Association’s Law Practice Today (LPT) webzine. In Finding a Niche Defending against Business Betrayals, Kang discusses his firm’s niche practice representing Officers and Directors in these often-complicated business disputes. Continue reading ›
Kang Haggerty News