News » Edward T. Kang » Page 3

Archives

|

Litigators preparing to qualify or challenge an expert witness must be ready to navigate several obstacles in admitting or excluding expert testimony. With the new amendment to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 coming into effect, litigators should take note of changes and incorporate them into their decision-making regarding expert testimony.

In the November 22, 2023 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang wrote, “Battle of the Experts (Standards): ‘Frye,’ ‘Daubert’ and Federal Rule of Evidence 702.” Continue reading ›

|

Rule 106 is more than just an obscure procedural rule governing the timing of the introduction of statements. It is tied to the fundamental objective of the adversary system, enabling parties to deliver robust arguments that are forceful yet within the bounds of fairness.

In the November 2, 2023 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang wrote, “Use Rule 106 to Your Advantage: Introducing the Rest of the Story in Real Time”

Continue reading ›

|

Because jurisdictions vary widely in their treatment of deposition break conferences, practitioners should not assume that conversations with clients during deposition breaks will be covered by attorney-client privilege.

In the October 12, 2023 Edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang wrote “Jurisdiction Matters: Things to Consider Before Consulting With Clients During Depositions“. Continue reading ›

|

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 ›

| 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 ›

|

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 ›

|

Those plaintiffs counsel practicing in the Third Circuit should rejoice in knowing that RICO provides a powerful tool for creditors against debtors using fraudulent means to avoid paying.

In the January 5, 2023 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang wrote “Sophisticated Schemers Beware: Civil RICO Expands Creditors’ Arsenal” Continue reading ›

| and

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 ›

Contact Information
Philadelphia Office
123 S Broad St #1950
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 © 2025, Kang Haggerty LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design