Application of RICO to foreign activities is doubt.

Lawyers for British American Tobacco Co., seeking a chance to overturn an anti-racketeering ruling against it, on Friday notified the Supreme Court of a new lower court ruling that bars the overseas reach of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970 — one of the main U.S. laws used to challenge business misconduct.  BATCo’s lawyers provided the Court’s clerk the decision reached on August 25,2010 by U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff in New York City in the case of Cedeno, et al., v. Intech Group, et al. (District docket 09-9716).

The filing was made  to further support BATCo’s petition for rehearing in British American Tobacco Ltd. v. U.S. (Supreme Court docket 09-980). ”The Justices have not yet acted on the petition.

 Judge Rakoff’s ruling, is based on the Supreme Court’s June 24, 2010 decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank (08-1191).  In the Cedeno case, Judge Rakoff concluded that the reasoning of Morrison — barring the overseas reach of a U.S. securities fraud law — applies fully to RICO.  A Second Circuit Court precedent that ruled the other way, the judge ruled, “is no longer good precedent in light of Morrison.

Judge Rakoff is a RICO expert and the author of  the Law Journal Press’s publication, “RICO: Civil and Criminal Law and Strategy.”

Bratz Maker MGA Accuses Mattel GC and Quinn Emanuel in Alleged RICO Toy-Spying Conspiracy

The ABA Journal “Law News Now” reported that toy maker MGA Entertainment, accused of stealing the idea for the Bratz doll by hiring Mattel workers, has turned the tables on its rival with a counterclaim that alleges a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act conspiracy to glean secret toy information by Mattel lawyers and other top executives.

In a counterclaim filed late Monday, MGA claims Mattel general counsel Robert Normile and its outside lawyers at Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan participated in a RICO conspiracy to spy on competitors.  MGA alleges Mattel printed fake business cards to gain access to competitors’ private showrooms where retailers and distributors were given an advance look at new toys.

MGA claims Normile had learned about the corporate espionage no later than 2005, but the practice was allowed to continue. According to MGA, a Mattel employee participating in the spy operation quit in 2005 because he feared criminal liability. At that time, an in-house lawyer allegedly worked with Quinn Emanuel lawyers to pay the employee "hush money in the form of a lucrative severance package.”

A Mattel spokeswoman told the Wall Street Journal that the new allegations are baseless and “a cynical attempt to deflect attention from MGA's own wrongdoing.”

Quinn Emanuel partner Michael Zeller told the Am Law Litigation Daily that the allegations are "second-rate tactics by desperate lawyers" that "won't survive the pleading stage."

British American Tobacco Co. asks Supreme Court to save it from RICO

Lyle Denniston reported in the SCOTUS Blog that British American Tobacco Co. (“BATCo”) asked the U.S. Supreme Court to require lower courts review whether RICO should be enforced against foreign companies. RICO was used in the federal government’s lawsuit against the tobacco industry, including BATCo. The Supreme Court has refused to hear any of the tobacco companies’ appeals. British American Tobacco notes in its petition that the Supreme Court held in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 08-119, that U.S. securities laws could not be used against foreign defendants.

BATCo argues that the D.C. Circuit Court should be directed to “consider Morrison’s impact in the first instance.” In upholding all key parts of a District Court ruling against the industry, BATCo’s lawyers argue, the Circuit Court created a “flawed ‘exception’ to the traditional presumption against extra-territoriality” of a U.S. law based on the alleged “effects” on the U.S. of overseas conduct.

“The D.C. Circuit Court held that RICO [the anti-racketeering law] could properly be applied to BATCo’s foreign conduct based on that novel theory, and on its twin conclusions that the ‘effects’ test could be properly transplanted from securities and antitrust law to RICO and that a severely watered-down version of the ‘effects’ test is satisfied here,” according to the petition. BATCo’s lawyers that the Morrison decision rejected that test for securities law, thus undercutting the Circuit Court’s conclusion about RICO’s application to BATCo.

In the government’s RICO case against the cigarette-making companies, it charged that the firms had engaged in a scheme to defraud the American consuming public by denying and covering up the health hazards of smoking. The case was resolved mostly in favor of the government based on RICO.

Civil RICO lawsuit filed against BP

Last week attorneys filed a federal civil RICO suit against BP and Transocean in the Western District of Louisiana.

Then on Monday another RICO lawsuit was filed targeting BP’s claims process. The suit filed in the Southern District of Alabama has accused three entities — BP, a catastrophe contractor administering claims and a property management company — of fraudulent practices in helping claimants seek recourse under funds set aside under the Oil Pollution Act.

According to the suit, the property manager, Brett/Robinson Gulf Corp., had offered up itself as a go-between for property owners and BP, filing claims on behalf of vacation home owners on the shores of Alabama. The suit claims the company was giving bad legal advice and charging homeowners for its services.

According to the complaint, the process was “part of a greater scheme to delay paying certain claims and to avoid paying certain other damages altogether.” As a result, the suit alleges claims have been delayed, underpaid and in some cases denied.

U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs both side in tobacco RICO case

 

The Supreme Court has rejected appeals by the Obama administration and the nation's largest tobacco companies to get involved in a legal fight about the dangers of cigarette smoking that has stretched more than 10 years in a case involving the RICO statute..

The court's action, issued without comment Monday, leaves in place court rulings that the tobacco industry illegally concealed the dangers of smoking for decades. But it also prevents the administration from trying to extract billions of dollars from the industry either in past profits or to fund a national campaign to curb smoking.

In asking the court to hear its appeal, the administration said the industry's half-century of deception "has cost the lives and damaged the health of untold millions of Americans."

The appeal was signed by Elena Kagan, the solicitor general, a couple of months before President Barack Obama nominated her to the Supreme Court.

Philip Morris USA, the nation's largest tobacco maker, its parent company Altria Group Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., British American Tobacco Investments Ltd. and Lorillard Tobacco Co. filed separate but related appeals that took issue with a federal judge's 1,600-page opinion and an appeals court ruling that found the industry engaged in racketeering and fraud over several decades.

In 2006, U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler ruled that the companies engaged in a scheme to defraud the public by falsely denying the adverse health effects of smoking, concealing evidence that nicotine is addictive and lying about their manipulation of nicotine in cigarettes to create addiction. A federal appeals court in Washington upheld the findings.

At the same time, however, the courts have said the government is not entitled to collect $280 billion in past profits or $14 billion for a national campaign to curb smoking. The high court previously denied the government's appeal on that issue.

The companies argue that the government improperly used the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, or RICO law, against them. The racketeering law often is employed against the Mafia and other criminal organizations.

The companies also say the courts' decision to brand their statements about smoking as fraudulent unfairly denied them their First Amendment rights to engage in the public-health debate about smoking.

The administration said the money it seeks from the industry is commensurate with the harm it has caused.

The public health groups in the case are: American Cancer Society; American Heart Association; American Lung Association; Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights; National African American Tobacco Prevention Network and Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund.

The groups are most interested in forcing the tobacco companies to pay for a wide-ranging education campaign to discourage people from taking up smoking and helping others quit.

Dentists' RICO class action dismissed

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a multibillion-dollar RICO class action filed by the American Dental Association and its members against major insurance companies for their alleged failure to pay providers.  The three-judge panel found that the complaint did not meet the heightened pleading standards required under the Iqbal and Twombly Supreme Court decisions. The lawsuit was filed in 2003 by three dentists and the American Dental Association in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of potentially hundreds of other dentist in the insurers' networks.

Dentists' RICO class action dismissed

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a multibillion-dollar RICO class action filed by the American Dental Association and its members against major insurance companies for their alleged failure to pay providers.  The three-judge panel found that the complaint did not meet the heightened pleading standards required under the Iqbal and Twombly Supreme Court decisions. The lawsuit was filed in 2003 by three dentists and the American Dental Association in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of potentially hundreds of other dentist in the insurers' networks.

Pfizer found liable under RICO ‒ $141 million in damages.

 

A jury in a Boston-based US District court case found that Pfizer, the world’s largest drug maker, violated federal antiracketeering laws by promoting Neurontin for off-label uses. Neurontin is FDA-approved for the treatment of epilepsy, but the jury found Pfizer guilty of marketing it for migraine headaches and bipolar disorder.

The jury set damages at $47 million. This amount is tripled under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, meaning that Pfizer must pay damages equaling $141 million.

The case was brought by Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals. Kaiser alleged that it overpaid for Neurontin as a result of Pfizer’s illegal marketing tactics.

In an unrelated case in 2004, Pfizer plead guilty to similar charges and agreed to pay $430 million to settle the matter.

Pfizer’s Neurontin marketing campaign transformed the underperforming epilepsy drug into a $2 billion per year blockbuster before generic versions became available in 2004.

RICO and the Catholic Church

 A major law firm partner has become one of six name plaintiffs in a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging sex abuse perpetrated by a former teacher at a Brooklyn Catholic prep school. The amended complaint in Zimmerman et al v. Poly Prep Country Day School et al. alleges that the school covered up decades of sex abuse by the now deceased coach. Counts I through IV raise claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968.


Efforts to assert civil RICO claims for the Church’s alleged cover-up of incidents of sexual abuse by priests have not fared well in the past. For example, the U.S. District Court in Magnum v. Archdiocese of Philidelphia dismissed a class action against the archdiocese of Philadelphia on a 12(b)(6) motion, finding that the plaintiffs lacked RICO standing and failed to state a claim of RICO conspiracy. The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal, emphasizing the inapplicability of civil RICO to personal injury claims. A number of past high-profile RICO claims alleging a conspiracy within the Albany Roman Catholic Diocese to cover up sex abuse that met with dismissals and a one-year suspension for the plaintiffs’ lawyer in those cases.

Mohawk Industries to pay $18 million to settle RICO class action

On April 12, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Harold Murphy granted a motion by employees of Mohawk Industries Inc. to preliminarily approve a settlement and certify the class, effectively putting an end to six years of litigation. 

The 11th Circuit had already ruled that Mohawk could be considered an enterprise under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO. The employees charged that the company violated RICO by conspiring with employment recruiting agencies to hire illegal workers to lower wages. The U.S. Supreme Court declined in February 2007 to hear the company’s appeal on that issue.

The workers had claimed they received lower wages than employees at other companies in the northern Georgia region where Mohawk is based. The area is known as the “Carpet Capital of the World” and is home to carpet plants for Shaw Industries, Interface and others. Mohawk did not admit to any of the allegations of wrongdoing.

Mohawk’s insurer, Zurich American Insurance Company, has agreed to pay $13 million of the settlement, with Mohawk contributing the remaining $5 million. The settlement allows about 48,000 current and former Mohawk workers to claim awards.

In addition to the cash award, Mohawk also agrees to train its employees about employment verification measures required by state and federal law and to set up a hot line to report allegations of hiring violations.