Edward T. Kang Archives — Page 9 of 11

Legal Intelligencer: A Primer on International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration for Litigators

January 5, 2018 | Edward T. Kang

In the January 5, 2018 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang, Managing Member of Kang Haggerty, writes A Primer on International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration for Litigators.

Arbitration, whether compulsory or voluntary, is commonplace these days as a less expensive and more efficient resolution to litigation than trial. Litigators in Pennsylvania are familiar with the Court of Common Pleas Compulsory Arbitration Program for cases with an amount in controversy of $50,000 or less. For cases with a larger amount in controversy, parties will often agree to arbitrate with a company offering a private arbitrator, such as AAA, JAMS and ADR Options.

In cases involving international disputes, the arbitration venues commonly found in contract include, the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), Swiss Chamber’s Arbitration Institution (SCAI), Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), German Institution of Arbitration (DIS), Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC), Vienna International Arbitration Center (VIAC), International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), and the International Court of Arbitration for the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC).

The number of international arbitrations has been increasing due largely to the growing number of courts in foreign countries recognizing and enforcing foreign arbitral awards. An ICC arbitral award, for instance, can now be enforced in China, where its courts refused to recognize and enforce foreign arbitral awards against its citizens on many occasions. It is becoming increasingly likely for practitioners to face a dispute over a contract providing for arbitration before one of these international forums. This is true even with smaller cases involving an amount in controversy under $50,000.

Legal Intelligencer: What Rights Do I Have as a Limited Partner Against a General Partner?

November 15, 2017 | Edward T. Kang

ETK-full-body-200x300-1 In the November 9, 2017 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang, managing member of the firm, writes on limited partnerships and the rights afforded to the limited partners when the general partner deviates from its duty of care.

Limited partnerships offer an attractive option over the general partnership form–namely, the benefits of a partnership arrangement, but with limited liability like that enjoyed by the owners of a corporation or limited liability company. With that limited liability, however, also comes limited input into the management and operation of the company. The general partner(s) manage the company, while limited partners typically have no right to manage or otherwise direct the affairs of the partnership. That means, absent a specific agreement between the partners and the partnership, a limited partner is treated like a shareholder of a public corporation–that is, a limited partner’s right is limited to voting and distribution and must trust that the general partner will manage and operate the partnership in the best interest of the partnership.

But what rights do limited partners have, especially when the general partner deviates from its duty of care or duty of loyalty owed to the partnership? Does a limited partner have the right to bring a direct action against another partner or the partnership itself? In a corporation setting, typically, a corporate officer/director owes fiduciary duties not to shareholders/owners, but to the entity itself. And if a dispute occurs with officers or directors, a shareholder must usually file a derivative action on behalf of the company to address a breach of fiduciary duty by its officers and directors.

Legal Intelligencer: Could Lawyers Be Held Liable to Nonclients for Negligence in Pa.?

November 6, 2017 | Edward T. Kang

ETK-2017-Head-Shot-200x300-1 In the November 2, 2017 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang, managing member of the firm, writes on the liability attorneys face in regards to nonclients.

In Pennsylvania, traditionally, if lawyers or other professionals, such as accountants, performed their professional duties negligently, they could only be held liable to those with whom they were in direct contractual privity—in other words, their clients. Others who may have suffered damage because of that negligence—for example, a party to a transaction relying on the other party’s lawyer’s faulty opinion letter, or a bank relying on an opinion letter prepared by a borrower’s lawyer while extending credit to the borrower—would be without a claim in tort.

In much of the country, however, courts will extend the liability of professionals to cover nonclient third parties injured by the negligence of professionals in certain situations. This liability is typically found under a theory of negligent misrepresentation, adopted from Section 522 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Section 522(1) provides: “One who, in the course of his business, profession or employment, or in any other transaction in which he has a pecuniary interest, supplies false information for the guidance of others in their business transactions, is subject to liability for pecuniary loss caused to them by their justifiable reliance upon the information, if he fails to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information.”

Legal Intelligencer: Through the Language Barrier: Examining a Witness Through Interpreters

October 23, 2017 | Edward T. Kang

In the October 19, 2017 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang, managing member of the firm, writes on the significant impact interpreters can have on a case.

The jury was thoroughly confused when a witness testified through an interpreter that he paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for a ladder in a construction case I tried a few years ago. What reasonable person would pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a ladder? The “ladder,” however, was really a staircase—a distinction that was obviously important to the case. The delineation between interpreting and translating—in other words, between explaining the meaning and translating words verbatim—is vital when it comes to the use of interpreters during witness examinations.

The American legal system is wrought with a specialized lexicon and complexities that do not exist in the English language. Though an interpreter is not allowed to explain the legal procedure or give advice to a witness, they are your conduit to the witness and the mouthpiece of the witness for the judge or jury. An interpreter has the power, whether consciously or unknowingly, to skew the words of the witness as they choose your words. One question or answer, rephrased improperly, can completely change the outcome of a case.

Legal Intelligencer: Edward T. Kang on Being Careful What You Say in Settlement Discussions

July 31, 2017 | Edward T. Kang

In the July 27, 2017 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Kang Haggerty Managing Member Edward T. Kang writes on Being Careful What You Say in Settlement Discussions.

Be Careful What You Say in Settlement Discussions

By Edward T. Kang

Legal Intelligencer: Edward T. Kang on How to Effectively Work With Millennials as Employees and Clients

June 28, 2017 | Edward T. Kang

Edward T. Kang, Esquire In the June 22, 2017 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Kang Haggerty Managing Member Edward T. Kang writes on How to Effectively Work With Millennials as Employees and Clients.

How to Effectively Work With Millennials as Employees and Clients

By Edward T. Kang

Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016—One-Year Later, Now What?

May 25, 2017 | Kang Haggerty LLC

“Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016—One-Year Later, Now What?” by Edward T. Kang | Legal Intelligencer

Following its enactment on May 11, 2016, there have been many cases filed in the US District Courts under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). In this publication with The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang discusses notable developments relating to the DTSA – such as the private right of action arising from a trade secret misappropriation that occurred before but continues after the act’s enactment, which is drastically different from the Uniform Trade Secrets Act adopted by most of the states.

Click here to read the full article about the updates on the DTSA.

“Act 170 Changes the Business Landscape in Pennsylvania” by Edward T. Kang | Legal Intelligencer

April 27, 2017 | Kang Haggerty LLC

Act 170 Changes the Business Landscape in Pennsylvania

Act 170 effects significant change to the litigation landscape for both practitioners and LLC members. In this Legal Intelligencer publication, Edward Kang discusses the rights of a limited liability company (LLC) member to sue other members either directly or derivatively on behalf of the company. Continue reading ›

I (Think) I’m Ready for My First Trial. Do I want a Jury or Nonjury Trial?

February 2, 2017 | Kang Haggerty LLC

In his April 2016 civil litigation column in The Legal Intelligencer and the Pennsylvania Law Weekly, Edward T. Kang discusses and compares the relative merits of jury and bench trials based on analysis of data and comparative studies on the outcome of cases categorized by choice of fact-finder. While jury trials may seem the norm according to the media, bench trial is the less publicized alternative that lawyers and their clients must also consider. Learn more about the consequences of this pivotal decision: jury or no jury? READ MORE

Class Action Rule Changes Are (Likely) Coming to Federal Courts

November 23, 2016 | Daniel D. Haggerty

In August of this year, the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure released a preliminary draft of proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Perhaps the most notable of the proposed amendments are those relating to Rule 23, which governs class actions. Rule 23 has been substantively amended four times since its adoption in 1937, and most recently in 2003. The proposed amendments affect the following aspects of Rule 23: method of notice to class members, settlement approval, objections of class members to settlement and appeals.

Notice

The proposal includes an amendment to Rule 23(c)(2)(b) to clarify the proper methods of notice to class members of a class certified under Rule 23(b)(3) (common questions of law or fact predominate over those pertinent to only individual class members and the class action is superior to other forms of action). Currently, Rule 23(c)(2)(b) requires notice by “the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances,” which could plausibly be read to permit notice through electronic or other means. But many courts have stated that this subsection of the rule requires notice by first class mail. The proposed amendment would clear up this confusion by allowing notice to be perfected “by United States mail, electronic means, or other appropriate means.” This proposed amendment is meant to clarify that modern methods of communication, such as email and social media, are permissible means of providing notice to class members. The proposed amendment reflects the reality that many people do not check their U.S. mail as regularly as they used to before the advent of electronic mail.