News » Page 18

|

32891617344_251b416fd3_o-1024x512-1Social media continues to grow as the powerhouse of information flow in modern times, and while it often seems no one is policing the content and fact and fiction are often indistinguishable, the SEC is policing the statements of at least one social media influencer, Elon Musk.  After Musk tweeted in August of 2018 that he had secured financing to take Tesla private at $420 per share, the SEC filed a complaint alleging that his tweets comprised a series of “false and misleading statements” to his millions of followers. The resulting court-approved settlement, reached in October, stipulated that Musk had to seek pre-approval of any written communications – including social media posts – that contained or reasonably could contain information material to Tesla or its shareholders.  In connection with the settlement, Tesla and Musk were each required to pay $20 million to the SEC.

Just days ago, Musk was back under scrutiny, having tweeted, “Tesla made 0 cars in 2011, but will make around 500k in 2019” without pre-approval from his counsel and for that, the SEC filed an enforcement motion seeking to have Musk held in contempt.  Continue reading ›

|

Member Jackie Fetbroyt sits on the board of the Voorhees Business Association and chairs the Bowling Fundraising Event Committee. Kang Haggerty is a proud “Spare” sponsor, and looks forward to the event on April 5, 2019 at The Big Event in Cherry Hill, NJ. Learn more about the event and the VBA’s philanthropic activities in this video.

|

In the January 24, 2019 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang, Managing Member of Kang Haggerty wrote “US Supreme Court Settles the ‘Wholly Groundless’ Exception. Or Has It?”

In a recent article I co-authored, I discussed the “wholly groundless” exception to delegation clauses under the Federal Arbitration Act, “Should an Arbitrator Determine Arbitrability Where a Claim Is ‘Wholly Groundless’?” The Legal Intelligencer (July 26, 2018). There, I discussed the circuit split on this issue and that the U.S. Supreme Court would soon decide this issue for good. And the court has.

On Jan. 8, writing for a unanimous court in his first written opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh held that the wholly groundless exception to arbitrability is inconsistent with the FAA and, therefore, no such exception exists, see Henry Schein v. Archer & White Sales, ___ S.Ct. ___, 2019 WL 122164 (Jan. 8, 2019). The court held “when the parties’ contract delegates the arbitrability question to an arbitrator, a court may not override the contract, even if the court thinks that the arbitrability claim is wholly groundless.” In concluding this, the court stated, “the act contains no ‘wholly groundless’ exception, and we may not engraft our own exceptions onto the statutory text.”

Continue reading ›

|

In the January 3, 2019 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang, Managing Member of Kang Haggerty 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 ›

|

Emoji overload? Billions of emojis are sent each day by family, friends, colleagues, co-workers and companies. With nearly 3,000 emojis in the Unicode Standard, it is difficult to stay fluent in emoji, which some experts have described as “the birth of a new language.” Edward T. Kang, Managing Member of Kang Haggerty LLC (“Kang Haggerty”) and Kandis L. Kovalsky, Associate at Kang Haggerty are working to shed light on the significance of emojis in business and in law.

At the end of September, Edward, Kandis and Jacklyn Fetbroyt, Member of Kang Haggerty, joined hundreds of other lawyers at the 2018 Annual Meeting of the National Association of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms (“NAMWOLF”) to promote diversity in the legal profession through meetings, sessions and CLEs.  Kang Haggerty presented a hit CLE to a full room titled “Emojis Speaking Louder Than Words? The Import of Emojis, Emoticons and Hashtags as Evidence at Trial and Beyond #😊.” Joined by five other panelists and a moderator, Edward discussed evidentiary and ethical issues involving emojis, social media and technology and why lawyers should care about emojis and hashtags.

By explaining how emojis can be used as critical evidence at trial, Edward and the other panelists helped practicing lawyers from all over the country understand that emojis are in more than a millennial’s social media feed. Emojis have found their way into courts through a variety of suits. Continue reading ›

|

In the December 11, 2018 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Tianna K. Kalogerakis, Associate of Kang Haggerty 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 ›

|

Philadelphia, PA (December 5, 2018): Kang Haggerty LLC, a business litigation boutique with offices in Philadelphia, PA and Marlton, NJ is pleased to announce the additions of associate Beth A. Hurley and law clerk Mika Kapnoutzi.

Headshots-of-Beth-and-Mika-1024x518

Beth Hurley, Left and Mika Kapnoutzi, Right

Beth Hurley concentrates her practice in Business Litigation, Class Action and Commercial Litigation. She earned her J.D. from the Fordham University School of Law in 2004 after graduating with a B.A. from the University of Pittsburgh. Prior to joining Kang Haggerty, Beth gained extensive litigation experience, serving as an Assistant District Attorney in Bucks County, PA, and Brooklyn, NY. In addition, she worked as an investigative attorney for the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office, and prosecuted cases involving economic crimes, enterprise corruption, organized crime and environmental crimes. She is admitted to the practice of law in Pennsylvania and New York.

Continue reading ›

| and

In the November 29, 2018 edition of The Legal Intelligencer Edward Kang, Managing Member of Kang Haggerty and Kandis Kovalsky, Associate of Kang Haggerty, co-authored “Have the Courts Made Room for Inevitability Under the Defend Trade Secrets Act?”

The Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), 18 U.S.C. Section 1836, et seq., which was enacted on May 11, 2016, after a Senate vote of 87-0, is the first federal law to protect trade secrets. The rare unanimous vote was unsurprising given the stunning report by the Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property that outlined how theft of intellectual property costs U.S. businesses more than $300 billion a year.

The DTSA highlighted Congress’ goal of aligning the federal law closely with the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), which has been adopted in some form in almost every state. Just as the Lanham Act, which coexists with state trademark law, the DTSA coexists with state trade secret law. As such, it is important to understand this interplay and what it is likely to look like going forward. Continue reading ›

|

blf-badge-2019-300x300Kang Haggerty LLC has been named a Tier 1 law firm in Philadelphia for construction law by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” 2019. In addition, the firm received a national tier 3 ranking in construction law, and a tier 2 rating in Philadelphia for commercial litigation.

The U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” rankings are based on a rigorous evaluation process that includes the collection of client and lawyer evaluations, peer review from leading attorneys in their field, and review of additional information provided by law firms as part of the formal submission process. To be eligible for a ranking in a particular practice area and metro region, a law firm must have at least one lawyer who is included in Best Lawyers in that particular practice area and metro.

To learn more, visit bestlawfirms.usnews.com.

| and
In the November 8, 2018 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang, Managing Member of Kang Haggerty and Kandis Kovalsky, Associate of Kang Haggerty, co-authored “When Noncompete Agreements Involve Competing Laws.”

In situations where employers also make their employees, or certain employees, agree to restrictive covenants, particularly noncompetes, companies expect the same uniformity and predictability regarding their enforceability as to each employee, regardless of where the employee works or lives. Employees, on the other hand, often expect (as we learned through a recent case) that even with another state’s choice of law provision, they will still be afforded the protection of the laws of their own state. This disconnect is no clearer than where non-California headquartered companies hire California residents as employees and require them to sign noncompetes governed by another state’s law. In California, noncompete agreements are generally unenforceable (with some limited exceptions). This is well-known, particularly by California residents. So, what happens in this situation if the California employee violates their noncompete? 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 © 2024, Kang Haggerty LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design