Articles Tagged with Edward T. Kang

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 ›

Member Edward T. Kang and Associate Ross Wolfe attended the Federal Bar Association Qui Tam Section’s Annual Qui Tam Conference in Washington, DC, from February 16 through February 17. This year’s theme was New Frontiers: Redefining the Landscape of the FCA.

The Qui Tam Section of the Federal Bar Association was started in 2015. It provides education, training, and networking opportunities for attorneys involved with the False Claims Act and other whistleblower statutes. Their award-winning Annual Qui Tam Conference is the section’s premier event. It rallies noteworthy leaders and eminent keynote speakers to foster deep analysis and discussion on contemporary whistleblower-related issues.

 

 

On January 25, 2023, Edward T. Kang and Kandis L. Kovalsky were joined by colleagues Nelson Bellido of Roig Lawyers and Michael Moder of AILA Limited to present Piercing (and Protecting) the Corporate Veil. The CLE focused on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s recent decision in Mortimer v. McCool and various theories of how to both uphold/enforce and avoid a claim to “pierce the corporate veil.”

You can access the on-demand webcast of Piercing (and protecting) the Corporate Veil, on the Federal Bar Association’s website here. This CLE was co-sponsored by myLawCLE.

Kang Haggerty attorneys Edward Kang, Kandis Kovalsky and Jackie Fetbroyt will be attending the National Association of Minority & Women Owned Law Firms (NAMWOLF) conference starting this weekend in San Antonio, Texas. It is NAMWOLF’s first in-person meeting since 2020, and more than 250 attorneys are registered to attend the Driving Diversity Leadership Conference. If you will be there, please be sure to say hello and consider attending one of the continuing legal education programs that we are participating in.

Edward will serve on a panel presented by the Trials PAC, How to Navigate Multi-Party Litigation – the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. On behalf of the Transactional PAC, Jackie will once again present her popular real estate CLE, From Brick and Mortar to Change or Mortem: The Transformation and Redevelopment of Malls’ Dead Space.

Edward Kang serves as a panelist at the 2022 NAMWOLF Driving Diversity Leadership Conference along with Arnold Barba of LimNexus LLP, Suann Ingle of Suann Ingle Associates, Zahira Diaz-Vasquez of AT&T Services, Eric Nordstrom of Casualty Claims, and Jane Appleby of Advocate Auroro Health.

Join the Trials Practice Area Committee for a thought-provoking panel discussion addressing issues that commonly arise during all phases of multi-party trial preparation. During this CLE, we will discuss the ethical obligations and best practices for multi-party litigation including: ethical issues implicated when representing multiple clients; pros and cons of filing a cross claim versus entering into a joint defense agreement; pre-suit litigation holds; time-saving discovery practices; and how to communicate to your audience – a jury – during trial. This CLE will help attorneys—whether in-house or outside counsel—who deal with multi-party matters create an outline to streamline and focus their strategy for these cases.

Clipboard and Chart overlay on modern buildingPiercing the veil of limited liability companies (LLCs) allows a court to disregard the separate corporate personality of the company and its member(s) to reach the assets of the members and hold them liable for all or part of the LLC’s debts under Pennsylvania law.

In the September 3, 2020 edition of The Legal Intelligencer Edward T. Kang, managing member of Kang Haggerty wrote “Piercing the Corporate Veil of LLCs Under Pennsylvania Law.

Piercing the veil of limited liability companies (LLCs) allows a court to disregard the separate corporate personality of the company and its member(s) to reach the assets of the members and hold them liable for all or part of the LLC’s debts under Pennsylvania law. Previously, I’ve written on the general substantive and procedural requirements of piercing the corporate veil of an entity and alter ego jurisdiction over corporate groups. This column addresses the Pennsylvania law on the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil as applied to LLCs.

Illustration of computer monitor with six people video chattingPlease join Kang Haggerty Managing Member Edward T. Kang (panelist) and Member Kandis L. Kovalsky (moderator) for an upcoming CLE, Next-Level ADR — The Future is Now for Arbitration in Complex Cases, during the NAMWOLF Virtual Annual Meeting, on September 16, 2020 from 4:00-5:00 PM ET.

The notable reasons for taking the arbitration route as opposed to heading to the Courthouse have only been exacerbated in recent months. We’ve seen what technology can (and can’t) do, what happens when the courthouse calendar gets further backlogged, and resources are slim. Where is arbitration heading in the legal profession?

Edward and Kandis will be joined by fellow panelists Nelson C. Bellido, Managing Partner of ROIG Lawyers in Miami, Florida; Marcus Wester, Senior Litigation Counsel, Harley-Davidson Motor Company; and Ingeuneal C. Gray, VP, Commercial Division, American Arbitration Association.

Diverse group of business people with arms foldedA recent decision out of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan underscored the RICO “proximate cause” inquiry highlighting yet another, often overlooked, complexity in litigating such cases.

In the July 23, 2020 edition of The Legal Intelligencer Edward T. Kang, managing member of Kang Haggerty wrote “Civil RICO and Proximate Cause: A Tool for Defendants and Challenge for Plaintiffs.

In March 2018, I authored a column on civil RICO claims brought under 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(a) and (b). In that space, I explained the complexity of those sections within RICO cases. A recent decision out of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan underscored the RICO “proximate cause” inquiry highlighting yet another, often overlooked, complexity in litigating such cases.

Laptop with various paper coming out of itWhile it is likely that businesses will think to add force majeure clauses to future contracts, there is also reason to believe the specific language of these clauses could be modified. Likewise, there are other changes to be expected in post-pandemic contracts.

In the July 2, 2020 edition of The Legal Intelligencer Edward T. Kang, managing member of Kang Haggerty wrote “The Future of Business Contracts Post-COVID-19.

Recently, I authored a column on force majeure clauses. In that space, I explained how many businesses have recently been turning to force majeure clauses in their contracts for protection in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. While it is likely that businesses will think to add force majeure clauses to future contracts, there is also reason to believe the specific language of these clauses could be modified. Likewise, there are other changes to be expected in post-pandemic contracts.

Businessman in suit on green background.When nonresident members of a corporate group, usually the parent company, should expect to be subjected to the jurisdiction of Pennsylvania courts when one of the entities, usually the subsidiary, is based or does business in the state.

In the June 18, 2020 edition of The Legal Intelligencer Edward T. Kang, managing member of Kang Haggerty wrote “Piercing the Corporate Veil of Corporate Groups to Establish Alter Ego Jurisdiction.

Last June, in this space, I authored a column about Pennsylvania law on substantive and procedural aspects of piercing the corporate veil of companies to reach the assets of their shareholders or the assets of a parent company in corporate groups. In early January 2020, I wrote a column about the development of Pennsylvania law on establishing personal jurisdiction over registered nonresident businesses since the Supreme Court’s decisions in. In this case, I address the intersection of those two related columns in cases involving corporate groups. That is, when nonresident members of a corporate group, usually the parent company, should expect to be subjected to the jurisdiction of Pennsylvania courts when one of the entities, usually the subsidiary, is based or does business in the state.

Contact Information