In 2001, Anderson was one of the “Big Five” public accounting firms. Founded by Arthur Anderson, whose motto was “think straight, talk straight.” The Anderson firm was one of the most respected accounting firms in the world. A year later, Anderson was found guilty of obstructing justice for destroying Enron’s financial documents. Anderson shut its doors in the United States that same year and surrendered its licenses to practice certified public accounting. A few years later, Anderson settled with various Enron investors who brought claims against Anderson for its role in the Enron fraud. Since the Enron/Anderson scandal, the law relating to an accountant’s duty to nonclients has changed.
Class action lawsuit filed against City of Philadelphia for improperly-issued speeding citations
On October 4, 2016, plaintiffs Dominick Owens, Rachael Bell, and Mark Zych (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a class action complaint against the City of Philadelphia in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, in Owens, et al. v. City of Philadelphia, No. 161000388. The complaint alleges that the Philadelphia Police Department (“PPD”) has been issuing speeding tickets on highways such as I-95, I-76, and I-676, knowing that it lacked the authority to do so, since at least July of 2012. Specifically, under the Vehicle Code, local police such as the PPD are prohibited from issuing speeding citations on highways such as I-95 without a speed enforcement agreement (“SEA”) with the Pennsylvania State Police (“State Police”). The complaint further alleges that on July 17, 2012, then-police commissioner Charles Ramsey issued a memorandum notifying all PPD personnel that the State Police had decided not to enter into a new SEA with the PPD covering I-95, I-76, and I-676; and as such, the PPD was prohibited from issuing speeding citations on those highways within the City of Philadelphia. Plaintiffs allege that, despite the July 17, 2012 memo (that is, despite knowing it lacked authority), the PPD has continued to issue speeding citations on I-95, I-76, and I-676 to this date, without ever having entered into a new SEA with the State Police – i.e., the PPD has been operating under a de facto policy of illegally stopping and citing motorists on I-95, I-76, and I-676. Plaintiffs allege that, based on the PPD’s knowingly false representation that it had authority to issue speeding citations on I-95, I-76, and I-676, Plaintiffs paid fines, attorneys’ fees, court costs, and increased car insurance rates associated with speeding citations they received from the PPD, and have therefore been damaged. Plaintiffs also allege that they were improperly detained in violation of their constitutional rights. The complaint contains counts against the City of Philadelphia for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs are represented by the law firm Kang Haggerty LLC.
For more information, call (215) 525-5850, or e-mail info@LawKHF.com.
Edward Kang Writes on Diversity and Its Impact on the Legal Profession for the ABA’s Law Practice Today
In the September 2016 edition of the American Bar Association’s Law Practice Today (LPT), Kang Haggerty’s Edward T. Kang authors the Diversity & Inclusion column, Diversity and Its Impact on the Legal Profession.
LPT, a monthly online publication of the ABA’s Law Practice Division, is distributed to nearly 500,000 lawyers and law students across the globe each month. Current and past issues can be accessed at www.lawpracticetoday.com.
Legal Intelligencer: Associate Salaries: What Am I Worth?
by The YL Editorial Board
Diversity and Its Impact on the Legal Profession
Law Practice Today
Legal Intelligencer: Child Abuse Bill: A First Step, But Debate Must Continue
by The YL Editorial Board
The Defend Trade Secrets Act and Its Impact on Trade Secret Litigation
Businesses develop mechanisms and procedures to cut costs, increase efficiency and otherwise set themselves apart from their competition. Methods and inventions developed to achieve these goals are often considered to be trade secrets of the business, and many businesses remain vigilant to guard their assets against a possible threat—for example, a departing employee who takes the business’s trade secrets and other confidential information and uses it to compete against the former employer.
To this end, businesses have lobbied for uniform federal legislation both to support businesses’ rights to protect their trade secrets and to ensure that their proprietary information will be adequately protected, regardless of the jurisdiction in which the matter arose. In 1979, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) was proposed by the Uniform Law Commission in an effort to provide uniformity of trade secret law across the nation and streamline trade secret litigation. Because states were free to adopt the entire act, adopt some of it, or reject it outright, many states adopted only portions of the UTSA, while customizing other sections of the act. The disjointed acceptance of the UTSA and, consequently, a divergence in courts’ interpretation of the UTSA essentially negated the “uniformity” that the UTSA sought to achieve in the first place. When facing a novel issue under the UTSA, for instance, many courts would look to their states’ “precedents” before the adoption on the UTSA rather than looking at sister courts’ treatment of the issue under their versions of the UTSA.
In a renewed effort to harmonize trade secret law, Congress passed the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA), which was enacted on May 11. Generally, the DTSA: creates a federal cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets, thereby permitting plaintiffs to assert their claims in either state or federal courts; grants the right to seek an ex parte seizure of an alleged misappropriator’s property in an effort to contain the misappropriated trade secrets; and requires that employers provide notice of the whistleblower immunity contained within the DTSA where trade secrets or other confidential information is available to employees, consultants, and independent contractors.
Legal Intelligencer: Advice for Young Lawyers: How to Maximize Your Conference Experience
by The YL Editorial Board
Fetbroyt Named to 2016 Super Lawyers’ Rising Star Lists
Kang Haggerty founding member Jacklyn Fetbroyt has been selected for inclusion in the 2016 Super Lawyers’ Rising Stars list, published by Thomson Reuters.
For Jackie, this is her fifth time (2010, 2013-2016) as a Rising Star in the area of Business/Corporate law – Pennsylvania.
The Super Lawyers’ Rising Stars list recognizes up and coming attorneys in each state 40 years old or younger, or those who have been practicing for 10 years or less. No more than 2.5 percent of lawyers in each state are named to the Rising Stars list. The lists are selected and published by Thomson Reuters. The selection process includes a statewide survey of lawyers, independent evaluation of candidates by an attorney-led research staff, a peer review of candidates by practice, and a good-standing and disciplinary check.
Legal Intelligencer: Wolf Needs to Nominate Eakin’s Replacement Soon
by The YL Editorial Board