Kang Haggerty News

COVID-19 UPDATES: Delay for Tax Day

March 23, 2020 | Jacklyn Fetbroyt

Corporate woman in suit sitting at computer, cactus also on desk
After a few false starts, the IRS announced over the weekend that the federal income tax filing due date is automatically extended to July 15, 2020. Mid-week, the IRS, acting in accordance with the President’s emergency declaration pursuant to the Stafford Act, originally extended only the time for certain tax payments, but not filings. Now, the IRS has clarified that both tax returns and tax payments originally due to be filed April 15th are extended three months.

Taxpayers can defer federal income tax payments due without penalties and interest, regardless of the amount owed; the latter is an important change from the earlier announcement as it related to corporations, which were only originally permitted to defer a certain amount. Now, this deferment applies to all taxpayers, including individuals, trusts and estates, corporations and other non-corporate tax filers.

Taxpayers do not need to file any additional forms or call the IRS to qualify for this automatic federal tax filing and payment relief. Taxpayers who need additional time to file beyond the July 15 deadline can request a filing extension by filing Form 4868 (individual) or Form 7004 (businesses).

Legal Intelligencer: Time to Reconsider Remote Depositions in the Age of COVID-19

March 20, 2020 | Edward T. Kang

Back of head facing screen In the March 19, 2020 edition of The Legal Intelligencer Edward T. Kang, managing member of Kang Haggerty wrote “Time to Reconsider Remote Depositions in the Age of COVID-19”

Remote depositions allow the deposition to proceed even though the witness is not in the same room as some or all of the other participating counsel and other persons entitled to be present.

As social distancing, travel limitations and working from home have become the norm due to the coronavirus (COVID-19), lawyers should give renewed consideration to conducting depositions by remote means. Remote depositions allow the deposition to proceed even though the witness is not in the same room as some or all of the other participating counsel and other persons entitled to be present.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(4) and similar state rules authorize remote depositions by stipulation of the parties or court order. Having conducted several depositions through remote means recently, including expert depositions, our firm attorneys believe the benefits of taking remote depositions far outweigh the perceived limitations. Continue reading ›

COVID-19 AND CONTRACT MANAGEMENT: Performance Obligations and Force Majeure

March 19, 2020 | Jacklyn Fetbroyt

Graphic shows two hands. One holding a contract that shows Force Majeure and the other hand signing. As a commercial transactional lawyer, I often speak to my clients and colleagues about contract management. While I am usually heavily involved in many stages of the contract lifecycle – most notably, negotiations, drafting, closings and amendments – the real work (and most problems) arise during contract performance, which is the time the contracting company is typically “on its own.” I stress to my clients that competent management of contracts post-execution is critical: your management team needs to know its contractual obligations: due dates and milestones, payment terms, and areas of performance. Who’s doing what, when, and for how much? I recommend companies appoint a contract manager to maintain each contract and its pertinent information, and create a database of performance, payment, and other obligation information, along with applicable deadlines and a “tickler” system.

Now, in the wake of COVID-19 and its tremendous impact on businesses, it is important to pull out those databases, and update them with information particular to the current state of operations – yours and your contracting partners. Continue reading ›

CLE for Pennsylvania Bar Institute: The Complex Commercial Case in Arbitration 2020

February 28, 2020 | Kang Haggerty LLC

Flyer advertising CLE with panelists, date and time Kang Haggerty Managing Member Edward T. Kang and Member Kandis L. Kovalsky are both presenters in an upcoming CLE on the advantages and disadvantages of using arbitration as a resolution mechanism for complex commercial cases. Kandis also serves as Course Planner.

This 3-hour CLE will review the history of arbitration and the United State’s growing trend favoring arbitration. The panel, comprised of experienced practitioners and arbitrators, will discuss the preliminary conference, discovery, awards as well as considerations for increasing the efficiency in arbitration. Continue reading ›

Kandis Kovalsky, David Scott Elected to Kang Haggerty Membership

January 29, 2020 | Kang Haggerty LLC

Philadelphia, PA (January 29, 2020): Kang Haggerty LLC, a business litigation boutique with offices in Philadelphia, PA and Marlton, NJ, is pleased to announce that Kandis L. Kovalsky and David R. Scott were elected to the firm’s membership, effective January 1, 2020.

Kandis L. Kovalsky

David R. Scott

Legal Intelligencer: Beyond the Courts: The Potential Future of Arbitration

January 23, 2020 | Edward T. Kang

In the January 23, 2020 edition of The Legal Intelligencer Edward T. Kang, managing member of Kang Haggerty wrote “Beyond the Courts: The Potential Future of Arbitration”

This recent decision has implications for how practitioners understand the court system and arbitration system to usually work, as well as raising already-existent questions about the fairness of arbitration clauses and its applicability for various types of claims.

In a recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, we saw a rare event—the court affirmed the district court’s decision to vacate an arbitration award in Monongahela Valley Hospital v. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, ___F.3d___ (3d Cir. Dec. 30, 2019). This case exemplified one of the rare situations in which the courts have decided to exercise authority and “correct” arbitration awards that have appeared to be blatantly unfair, which could arise from a variety of reasons. This recent decision has implications for how practitioners understand the court system and arbitration system to usually work, as well as raising already-existent questions about the fairness of arbitration clauses and its applicability for various types of claims.

Monongahela Valley Hospital involved a dispute between the hospital and one of its “bargaining unit” employees who are members of the union under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). About half of the employees of the hospital are supervisors who are not bargaining unit employees. The CBA governed the relationship between the hospital and the bargaining unit employees. The grievances centered around the hospital’s denial of a unit bargaining employee’s request for vacation due to a non-unit bargaining employee’s request for the same time off. The hospital denied the unit bargaining employee’s request because her supervisor, a nonbargaining unit employee, had requested the same week off and both could not be away at the same time. Using its authority to have the “final” say in the matter, the hospital denied the bargaining unit employee’s request. Continue reading ›

Legal Intelligencer: Five Years After ‘Daimler’: It’s All in the Specifics

January 2, 2020 | Edward T. Kang and Kandis Kovalsky

In the January 2, 2020 edition of The Legal Intelligencer Edward T. Kang and Kandis L. Kovalsky co-authored “Five Years After ‘Daimler’: It’s All in the Specifics.”

Major cases such as 2014’s Daimler AG v. Bauman have refined the requirements for, and in many senses restricted, the establishment of personal jurisdiction over parties. This goes for both the exercise of general and specific jurisdiction.

The exercise of personal jurisdiction is fundamentally connected with the constitutional right to due process. The question of whether it is fair and procedurally proper to subject a person to a forum state’s jurisdiction has been refined by the U.S. Supreme Court multiple times in the past decades, and especially in recent years. Major cases such as 2014’s Daimler AG v. Bauman have refined the requirements for, and in many senses restricted, the establishment of personal jurisdiction over parties. This goes for both the exercise of general and specific jurisdiction.

The basic notion behind general jurisdiction is that the defendant has to have, to quote directly from the well-known International Shoe v. State of Washington opinion, “continuous and systematic” affiliations with the forum state to reasonably expect that state’s jurisdiction over her, no matter the issue at stake (as opposed to specific jurisdiction, where the issue in question is the only reason one could expect to land up in another state’s court). But, what does “continuous and systematic” mean? Continue reading ›

Maliheh Zare and Michael Weinert Join Kang Haggerty

December 12, 2019 | Kang Haggerty LLC

Philadelphia, PA (December 12, 2019): Kang Haggerty LLC, a business litigation boutique with offices in Philadelphia, PA and Marlton, NJ is pleased to announce that Maliheh Zare and Michael Weinert have joined the firm as associates.

Maliheh Zare

Michael Weinert

Legal Intelligencer: What I Wish I Knew When I Began My Law Career

December 11, 2019 | Kandis Kovalsky

By the YL Editorial Board

Legal Intelligencer: Changing Consumer Data and Protection Regulations for Companies and Their Counsel

November 27, 2019 | Edward T. Kang

In the November 27, 2019 edition of The Legal Intelligencer Edward T. Kang, managing member of Kang Haggerty wrote “Changing Consumer Data and Protection Regulations for Companies and Their Counsel.”

Although a European regulation, the GDPR has affected American companies and, as it appears, has also begun to shape American law and policy. GDPR’s strict regulations and rules do not simply apply within the EU and the European economic area—it affects anyone who does business with a person living in those countries.

Last year, I wrote an article that discussed the implications of the European Union’s (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (commonly referred to as GDPR), which came into effect last May. GDPR’s goal was to create and to ensure the rights of European Union and European economic area citizens to protect their personal data. In the wake of numerous data breaches and many company’s morally gray handling of their customers’ personal data, the implementation of the GDPR gives people the chance to understand better and control the dissemination and use of their personal data. The regulation also insists upon a high level of care from any data handler so that personal information is better protected.

Firm News

This recent decision has implications for how practitioners understand the court system and arbitration system to usually work, as well as raising already-existent questions about the fairness of arbitration clauses and its applicability for various types of claims.

Major cases such as 2014’s Daimler AG v. Bauman have refined the requirements for, and in many senses restricted, the establishment of personal jurisdiction over parties. This goes for both the exercise of general and specific jurisdiction.