COVID-19 Update: FAQ and Other Information for Clients

Articles Tagged with Pennsylvania

Outline of NJ on pink background
April 1, 2020 Update:  As anxiously anticipated, Governor Murphy joined all other States in providing New Jersey taxpayers relief by extending the income tax deadline to July 15, 2020, the same date that federal tax filings are due under the IRS extension.  In a Joint Statement released in the late morning of April 1st, the Governor, along with Senate President Steve Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin, stated they “have reached agreement that the state income tax filing deadline and the corporation business tax filing deadline will be extended from April 15th to July 15th.” They further announced that New Jersey’s fiscal year should be extended to September 30th and affirmed their commitment to “to working together to enact the necessary legislation and supplemental appropriations to accomplish these goals.” See the full text of the joint statement here.

Original Post:

Last week, we posted that, after a few false starts, the IRS announced the federal income tax filing due date was automatically extended to July 15, 2020, which meant that both tax returns and tax payments originally due to be filed April 15th with the IRS are extended three months.

Illustration of office building with two trees out front. All windows are darkened but one, which shows the the figure of one person. With the current outbreak of COVID-19, each day creates a new normal. Government officials are adjusting to the new pandemic and implementing different policies to help protect the community’ s public health. On Thursday, March 19, 2020 Governor Tom Wolf issued an order mandating that all non-life-sustaining businesses close their physical locations by Thursday at 8 PM. Specifically, the order provides:

No person or entity shall operate a place of business in the Commonwealth that is not a life sustaining business regardless of whether the business is open to members of the public. This prohibition does not apply to virtual or telework operations (e.g., work from home), so long as social distancing and other mitigation measures are followed in such operations. Continue reading ›

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 ›

KHF proudly sponsored the Barristers’ Association of Philadelphia, Inc’s 35th Annual Turkey Drive in advance of the Thanksgiving holiday. This year, the Barristers were able to provide 700 Philadelphia families in need with “turkey baskets” which included a turkey, stuffing, corn, green beans and cranberry sauce.

Volunteers consisted of practicing attorneys and their families as well as law students. Some notable volunteers were Continue reading ›

In the September 5, 2019 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang, Managing Member of KHF wrote “‘T.M. v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals’ – Lessons on Standards of Evidence.”

The value of the reinstatement of T.M. v. Janssen for lawyers is that it clarifies laws about evidence, how courts determine evidence’s reliability, and general lessons on procedural law.

Last month, the Pennsylvania Superior Court reinstated a case concerning the drug Risperdal, which had initially been dismissed mid-trial in 2016. Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceutical’s drug, Risperdal, is currently the subject of thousands of suits alleging that the drug directly caused gynecomastia in many young men.

In the June 20, 2019 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang, Managing Member of KHF wrote “Piercing the Corporate Veil Under Pennsylvania Law.”

In its simplest form, the piercing of the corporate veil is an equitable remedy available to the creditors of corporate entities to request the court to hold their owners liable for the corporate debts. The underlying cause of action against the corporate entity could be a contract or tort action, none of which is attributable to its owners. For the creditors, the veil-piercing is desirable as their last resort to recover their damages while for the owners, it is detrimental as it exposes them to the type of liability that they wished to exonerate themselves from by forming a company in the first place. These two competing interests drive the forces behind the state laws on substantive elements and procedural requirements for veil-piercing: the more favorable the state policy is toward preserving limited liability, the harder it is under the state law for the court to disregard corporate entity, and the other way around. Pennsylvania law adopted a “strong presumption” against veil-piercing, see Stephen B. Presser, “Section 2:42.Pennsylvania, in Piercing the Corporate Veil,” (last updated July 2018).

Substantive Elements

Pennsylvania state and federal courts applying Pennsylvania law has long listed a vast set of factors that the court may consider in its decision to disregard the corporate shield, including, among others, using the corporate form as a sham to pursue fraudulent or illegal activities or to cause injustice, ignoring corporate formalities, undercapitalizing the company and exerting control to influence the corporate decisions and actions for personal interests. Continue reading ›

What happens when a dispute is between or among directors of the same company? Can the company use the attorney-client privilege to shield corporate materials, including any attorney-client privileged materials against a director?

Continue reading ›

HDsquare-e1534964191223-150x150

Henry Donner, Of Counsel

Kang Haggerty & Fetbroyt, a boutique business litigation firm with offices in Philadelphia, PA and Marlton, NJ, is proud to once again congratulate Henry Donner, Of Counsel, named the Senior Statesman for construction lawyers in Pennsylvania in the 2019 edition of Chambers USA.

As the only senior statesman for the construction law practice in the state, Chambers USA calls Donner an “Excellent lawyer…a seasoned expert in the construction community. His clients include developers, condominium associations, contractors, subcontractors and design professionals. They appreciate his abilities to ‘cut to the heart of the problem and not get sidetracked’ and ‘to listen to what your needs are and act accordingly.’

In the January 3, 2019 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang, Managing Member of KHF wrote “Defending Officers and Directors From a Lawsuit by the Company.

When a corporate director or officer is sued by a third party for alleged misconduct carried out in her capacity as director/officer, the company generally indemnifies the director/officer by defending her against the lawsuit. The company’s duty of indemnification arises from both the law and governing corporate documents (e.g., articles of incorporation, bylaws or employment agreement). While there are limited exceptions to the company’s duty of indemnification—e.g., the director/officer acted in her personal capacity or that she acted in bad faith against the interest of the company—the duty of indemnification is broad. The company must defend the director/officer, at least until the court determines otherwise. What protection does a corporate director/officer have, however, if the person suing her is the company itself?

A company sues its officer or director more frequently than many people think. The company could bring a direct lawsuit against an officer or director for a breach of fiduciary duty (e.g., alleged self-dealing). Sometimes, a shareholder could bring a derivative lawsuit under the company’s name against the officer or director. Continue reading ›

In the December 11, 2018 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Tianna K. Kalogerakis, Associate of KHF authored “Pa. Law Firms Must Learn From the Past to Improve Diversity in the Future.”

A mere four years after The Legal Intelligencer’s founding in 1843, the story of blacks seeking admission to the legal profession in Pennsylvania began. Despite nearly 175 years of black Pennsylvania lawyers overcoming obstacles to entry of the legal profession, institutional barriers persist, leaving blacks and other minorities in the state still in search of meaningful access in the legal profession. In 2018, law firms that are not intentional about cultivating diversity may be unintentionally discriminating against diverse candidates.

To tell the story of diversity in the legal profession—specifically when discussing the black lawyer—one must first acknowledge the role of slavery in America. People of color were held in bondage for decades against their will and the ownership of humans by other humans was sanctioned by the laws of this country. Enslavement and discrimination of individuals based on their skin color was codified into our federal and state systems of government and dictated the daily interactions of individuals. These codifications and the resulting caste system became the foundations of the institutional barriers minorities continue to face today. Continue reading ›

Contact Information