$24 Billion RICO Lawsuit Against Credit Suisse

Investors in resort properties of high-end projects filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Boise, Idaho against investment bank Credit Suisse, accusing the financial giant of deliberately engineering the failure of at least four major resort projects so that it could acquire them on the cheap.   

The suit alleges a host of illegal acts by Credit Suisse and the real estate firm Cushman & Wakefield, including violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), fraud, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, and seeks $24 billion in damages.

The lawsuit alleges that Credit Suisse’s resort loan program, which eventually included more than a dozen properties and billions of dollars in loans, was a deliberate scheme to burden the resorts with debts they could not repay so that the bank could gain ownership through foreclosure or bankruptcy. While the suit currently only includes the four projects, including Tamarack Resort in Donnelley, Idaho, it also suggests that other resorts that took loans from Credit Suisse - including Promontory in Utah and Turtle Bay in Hawaii - could eventually be part of the litigation as well.

Credit Suisse spokesman Duncan King said: “We believe the suit to be without merit and will defend ourselves vigorously.”

The lawsuit focuses on the use of an appraisal method that is not compliant with U.S. banking regulations. The co-called “total net value” appraisals, which essentially took the total estimated market value of all sale-able real estate but did not apply the normal “discount rate” that factors in market fluctuations and how quickly properties might sell, yielded a much higher value than a typical appraisal and was used to support very large loans. At Yellowstone Club the loans totaled $375 million; at Lake Las Vegas it was $540 million; at Tamarack Resort it was $250 million. Credit Suisse set up an entity in the Cayman Islands specifically to facilitate the loans, which could not be marketed by or to U.S. banks because they relied on the non-compliant appraisals.

Under the scenario outlined in the lawsuit, the resort owners, who were explicitly permitted to take hundreds of millions of dollars in loan proceeds as “dividends,” were duped by Credit Suisse into taking the money. The suit relies heavily on a Yellowstone Club case ruling by U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Ralph B. Kirscher, who called the Credit Suisse loan to the club “predatory” and said the behavior of the bank “shocked the conscience of this court.” That ruling led to a settlement in which the decision was vacated and Credit Suisse agreed to a sale of the property to CrossHarbor Capital Partners.

Credit Suisse now controls the “liquidating trust” in the Yellowstone Club case, and contends that it is Tim Blixseth, the developer, who acted badly in transferring so much money out of the club and that he should be required to pay the money back.

Lake Las Vegas remains mired in a highly complex bankruptcy proceeding, with its golf courses and many other facilities closed. Tamarack is also closed, and a foreclosure trial is scheduled for next month. Yellowstone Club and Promontory have emerged from bankruptcy and are now operating normally. The institutional investors who bought the debt from Credit Suisse lost about 70% of their money on Yellowstone Club, and virtually all their money on Promontory. Tamarack and Lake Las Vegas are likely to yield little if any payback for the debt-holders.

Missouri funeral contract exec sued under RICO.

The AP (8/10) reported that Randall Sutton, president and CFO of defunct Missouri funeral contract company National Prearranged Services Inc., "is facing federal fraud charges in an alleged scheme to loot hundreds of millions of dollars from customers' prepaid funeral accounts." Sutton "is among 45 defendants named in a civil racketeering, fraud and fiduciary negligence lawsuit filed Thursday in federal court in St. Louis against officials of National Prearranged Services, its insurance affiliates and various banks, law firms, auditors and investment advisers connected to the consortium of companies.

The lawsuit "was brought by Donna Garrett, the deputy receiver appointed to administer the companies after their failure, and by groups representing the insurance guarantee funds of about three dozen states. It seeks an unspecified amount of damages, which plaintiffs attorneys said Monday could surpass $1 billion."

Federal court approves $350 million RICO case settlement

A federal court in Massachusetts approved a $350 million settlement. The case alleged a drug wholesaler of inflating drug prices.

Consumers brought the lawsuit against McKesson and FirstDataBank to recover some of their money back.

FirstData is a publisher of drug pricing information. The sole drug manufacturer the FirstData surveyed was McKesson. The two marked up the average price of certain drugs from 20 to 25 percent.

The suit alleged that McKesson and FirstData violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). The complaint alleged that the companies used interstate mail to fraudulently raise the average price of McKesson’s drugs.

RICO Applied in Mortgage Fraud Scheme

San Diego, Calif.- (April 7, 2009) U.S. Attorney Karen P. Hewitt announced today the unsealing of an indictment charging 24 individuals with conspiracy to conduct enterprise affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Specifically, the defendants are charged with using a corrupt enterprise to conduct a pattern of racketeering activity, namely, wire fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering. The charged racketeering activity all stems from an extensive mortgage fraud scheme based in San Diego, that involved 220 properties with a total sales price of more than $100 million dollars.

According to Assistant U.S. Attorneys Todd W. Robinson and Nicole Acton Jones, who are prosecuting the case, the lead defendants charged with running the corrupt enterprise are: Darnell Bell, aka D-Bell, Michael Ivy, Stanley Gentry and Billie Bishop. The indictment alleges that Darnell Bell, a documented member of the Lincoln Park street gang, was the leader of the corrupt enterprise and that he received at least $9 million in proceeds from the racketeering conspiracy. Michael Ivy was primarily responsible for negotiating the purchase of real estate on behalf of the enterprise. Stanley Gentry, a licensed real estate broker, allowed the corrupt enterprise to use his broker's license to facilitate the fraudulent purchase of property in exchange for a $10,000 monthly payment and a percentage of the real estate commission and broker's fees associated with each fraudulent purchase. Billie Bishop was an escrow officer who facilitated the fraudulent purchase of more than 100 properties on behalf of the enterprise.

The indictment alleges that the defendants devised a scheme to defraud mortgage lenders and to obtain money and property by false and fraudulent means. According to the indictment, between January 2005 and at least April 2008, the defendants used multiple real estate businesses, including the Ivy House, Inc., the Real Estate Center of Southern California, and the Real Estate Center of La Mesa, to facilitate the fraudulent purchase of real estate. In general terms, the scheme charged in the indictment worked as follows:

  • Defendants identified properties for sale throughout Southern California that had been on the market for an extended period of time and for which the original asking price had been reduced.
  • Defendants then recruited "straw buyers" who allowed their names and credit histories to be used to obtain mortgage loans and purchase properties in name only on behalf of the racketeering enterprise.
  • Defendants prepared and submitted offers to purchase the identified properties that substantially exceeded the asking price for those properties.
  • Defendants hired real estate appraisers, including co-defendant Esteban Valenzuela, to prepare inflated appraisals for the identified properties; the inflated appraisals were then used to fraudulently induce lenders to believe that the loans being given to the "straw buyers" would be fully secured by the value of the properties being purchased.
  • Defendants prepared and submitted false loan applications for the "straw buyers" in order to induce lenders to make loans to persons and at terms that the lenders otherwise would not have funded.
  • Defendants prepared and submitted false documents and information in response to lender verification inquiries, including "CPA letters," verification of employment forms, verification of rent forms and "discrepancy letters."
  • Members of the Enterprise ensured that the "straw buyers" purchased the identified properties with mortgages amounting to 100 percent of the purchase price of the property, thus ensuring that the defendants did not have any money at risk in the fraudulent transactions.
  • Defendants arranged to have the amount of money that exceeded the asking price (i.e., the "kickback amount") paid at the close of escrow to a shell construction company maintained by the racketeering enterprise.
  • Defendants falsely informed the lenders that the "kickback amount" would be used to pay for handicap accessing and property upgrades to the identified properties, thereby falsely inducing the lenders to believe that the entire loan amount would be secured by the value of the identified properties.
  • Based upon the investigation to date, none of the properties that were purchased as part of the enterprise had any handicap accessibility or property upgrades performed by the defendants' shell firm, Bell Construction.
  • Defendants disbursed the "kickback amount" to members and associates of the racketeering enterprise as payment for those individuals' participation in the fraudulent scheme.

The "straw buyers" subsequently failed to make the required mortgage payments for the fraudulently purchased properties, which ultimately resulted in the properties being foreclosed and the lenders suffering severe financial losses.

The indictment also charges that several real estate professionals were members of the racketeering conspiracy, including: Diana Jaime, a public notary; Jorge Cortez, a licensed real estate agent; Esteban Valenzuela, a licensed real estate appraiser; Anton Ewing, a Certified Public Accountant; and Randolph Hirsch and Dennis Tapia, registered tax preparers. Latashia McKinney and Marcus Dozzell, aka Kali, recruited individuals to obtain fraudulent mortgage loans and purchase properties on behalf of the corrupt enterprise. Lorena Callu was employed by the corrupt enterprise and facilitated the fraudulent purchase of real estate by, among other things, preparing and submitting false loan applications. Desiree Holiday, Dexter Holiday, Keith Holiday, Gerard Holiday, Ray Logan, aka Jack Nasty, David Lewis, Joseph Lewis, Stevie Frazier, Jorge Magana, Nicoele Watson and Daniel Williams are all alleged to have fraudulently obtained mortgage loans and purchased properties on behalf of the corrupt enterprise.

An indictment itself is not evidence that the defendants committed the crimes charged. The defendants are presumed innocent until the Government meets its burden in court of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

U.S. Attorney Hewitt said, "This indictment represents the largest mortgage fraud case ever prosecuted in the history of the Southern District of California. Although this case marks an important milestone for the U.S. Attorney's Office, the FBI and the IRS, we have much additional investigative work ahead of us to hold accountable those individuals who engaged in similar mortgage fraud schemes throughout San Diego and Imperial counties."

FBI Special Agent-in-Charge Keith Slotter commented, "The individuals charged in this indictment have one thing in common: greed. They represent precisely those who have undermined our country's financial system by perpetuating such egregious schemes. The FBI and our law enforcement partners remain vigilant and will pursue those who engage in this type of criminal activity. The extent to which this group of people went to defraud lenders should also serve as a warning to the public. We urge people to come forward with information of suspicious activities they may encounter when engaged in real estate and mortgage transactions."

"Today's indictment of this criminal enterprise spearheaded by Darnell Bell speaks volumes to those who choose to engage in organized criminal activity that undermines the financial health of our communities," said Thomas J. Holloman, Acting Special Agent-in-Charge, IRS Criminal Investigation, Los Angeles Field Office. "The racketeering, forfeiture, and money laundering charges are indicative of the joint-agency law enforcement effort that has focused on dismantling this criminal organization that has grossly profited from mortgage fraud."

The case is the product of an investigation by agents of the FBI and IRS Criminal Investigation and is being prosecuted in San Diego federal court by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Todd W. Robinson and Nicole Acton Jones.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice

State Farm Awarded $15.4 Million in RICO Suit Against Doctors

In a civil RICO suit that accused three doctors of operating a fraud mill that sharply inflated the costs of medical care for car accident victims, a federal jury last week awarded more than $15.4 million to State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

After a three-week trial, the jury on Thursday awarded State Farm more than $4 million in compensatory damages and $11.4 million in punitive damages.

Lead defendant Arnold Lincow, an osteopathic doctor alleged to be the leader of the fraud ring, was hit the hardest with an order to pay $5 million in punitive damages.

The jury also levied punitive awards of $600,000 each against two other osteopaths, Lawrence Forman and Richard Mintz, and two chiropractors, Stephen Hennessy and Richard Butow. Another doctor, Stephen Sacks, struck a confidential settlement with State Farm prior to the trial.

Four medical service companies were also hit with punitive awards.

In court papers, State Farm alleged that Lincow concocted a scheme to drastically inflate the medical bills of car accident victims by systematically prescribing a full menu of tests and treatments, as well as prescriptions and medical equipment -- whether medically necessary or not -- and then routinely padding the files with bills for additional treatments that were never provided.

The allegations were that Lincow "created standardized treatment plans and medical records" for his patients, and systematically instructed his employees "to document, for billing purposes, services that were never rendered, services that were different and more costly than services actually rendered, as well as services that were not medically necessary or appropriate and/or not reimbursable under applicable law."

RICO lawsuit filed against doctors for asbestos screening scheme

An embattled West Virginia radiologist, his son and others have been sued in Mississippi on racketeering and other charges related to an alleged scheme involving asbestos screenings for lawsuits across the nation.

Ray Harrron and Andrew Harron are two of the defendants named in a lawsuit filed Feb. 9 in Holmes County Circuit Court by National Service Industries, also known as North Brothers.

"The primary cause of this action is a widespread unlawful enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity across state lines and a conspiracy to engage in racketeering activity involving numerous RICO (the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) predicate acts for at least the past 10 calendar years," the complaint states. "The predicate acts include mail fraud and wire fraud ..."

Since 1995, the defendants "have schemed to generate false medical test results, false medical reports and false diagnoses to substantiate tens of thousands of personal injury cases filed against plaintiff and other similarly situated companies or bankruptcy trusts involving allegations of asbestos related disease."

NSI says the defendants engaged in this "unlawful scheme for the purpose of monetary gain by creating fraudulent medical documentation to make the individuals that they recruited and 'screened' appear to suffer from asbestos-related disease to extract money from plaintiff and others through the court system and/or claims settlements."

NSI describes the acts of Harron and the other defendants as "mass assembly-line screenings of persons suspected of work-related exposure to products containing asbestos."

Others defendants named are N&M Inc., Charlie Heath Mason, Molly Ruth Netherland, Christopher Linn Taylor and yet unnamed John Doe defendants 1-20.

The defendants' screenings typically included the generation of exposure histories, chest x-rays, accompanying reads by physicians, physical exams, pulmonary function tests and diagnoses by Harron and other defendants for personal injury law firms.

"These law firms then used this purported "medical evidence" to file and/or settle thousands of asbestos-related injury claims," the complaint states. "Defendants' screenings were massive recruitment programs carried out for personal injury law firms and attorneys on targeted populations of current and former industrial and construction workers with the sole purpose of generating a phenomenal volume of potential claimants as clients for these law firms."

The lawsuit says the defendants spent more than $1.5 million "aggressively marketing" their screening services to their law firm and attorney "customers" and on mass advertisements soliciting individual subjects for screening.
 

Ninth Circuit Holds That Canadian Receiver Has Standing Under RICO.

On December 31, 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in A. Farber & Partners, Inc. v. Garber et al., 2008 WL 5427956 (C.A.9 (Cal.)), held that a Canadian receiver had standing to bring a lawsuit under RICO. A. Farber & Partners, Inc. (the “Receiver”) was appointed interim receiver over the assets of Salim Damji and Strategic Trading Systems Instant White (“STS”) by an order issued by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The Receiver's appointment followed a Canadian class action by a group of investors against Damji for fraud. Acting under the order, the Receiver brought this RICO action against Maynard Garber and the other defendants. The Receiver appealed the district court's order granting summary judgment on the ground that the Receiver lacked standing to bring a RICO action.

Under RICO's civil suit provision, “any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district.”18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). The Receiver alleged that the defendants violated several provisions of § 1962 as part of a large-scale money laundering scheme that involved transfers of approximately $34 million out of Canada to various straw companies and illegal gambling operations. The only issue before this court is whether the Receiver has standing under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) to assert these RICO claims against the defendants.

Section 7(e) of the Canadian receivership order authorizes the Receiver “to initiate, prosecute and continue the prosecution of any and all proceedings as may in its judgment be necessary or desirable to properly protect or realize upon the Property.”E.R. 8: 1464. By the terms of this section of the court's order, the Receiver is not the personal representative of Damji and does not stand in his shoes. The Receiver's power springs from its appointment to collect and preserve the Property. The “Property” is defined in the order as “all of the present and future assets, undertaking and property of [Damji and STS] and any funds, proceeds or other assets directly or indirectly related to the funds allegedly raised by [Damji and STS] as alleged in [the Canadian class action complaint].” E.R. 8: 1462-63. The Receiver’s RICO action was authorized by the Canadian receivership order and approved by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The Ninth Circuit accepted the Receiver's averments that (1) the defendants participated in a conspiracy to launder funds over which the Receiver has legal control, and (2) that the Receiver suffered injury when the funds under its protection were transferred by the defendants' RICO violations. Consequently, the court held that the Receiver had sufficiently alleged that it was injured in its property by reason of a violation of section 1962 and found that the district court erred in holding that the Receiver did not have standing to bring its RICO claims under § 1964(c).
 

New York investors sue Madoff.

Bloomberg News(12/31, Larson) reports, "Bernard Madoff, the financial adviser who allegedly admitted to running a $50 billion fraud, was sued by three New York investors who say he should be barred from distributing money to family and friends." They say that he "should have his assets permanently frozen and be prevented from continuing the alleged fraud." The suit was "filed by Anthony, Maria, and Toni Sciremammano, all residents of Massapequa Park, NY. The trio started investing with Madoff in 1995 and had a total of about $2 million invested as of September, they said." The case is Anthony Sciremammano v. Bernard L. Madoff, 08- cv-11332, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

Second Circuit Reverses Judge Weinstein in Light Cigarette Case

Yesterday, April 3, 2008, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Judge Jack Weinstein’s grant of class certification for “light” cigarette litigants in McLaughlin v. American Tobacco Co., --- F.3d ----, 2008 WL 878627 (C.A.2 (N.Y.). Plaintiffs, a group of smokers allegedly deceived-by defendants' marketing and branding-into believing that “light” cigarettes (“Lights”) were healthier than “full-flavored” cigarettes, sought and were granted class certification. Schwab v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 449 F.Supp.2d 992 (E.D.N.Y.2006) (Jack B. Weinstein, Judge). Plaintiffs' suit was brought under RICO, with mail and wire fraud as the necessary predicate acts. See 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) (forbidding “any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity”); see also id.§ 1961(1) (providing that mail and wire fraud constitute racketeering activity); cf. id. § 1341 (mail fraud statute); id. § 1343 (wire fraud statute). The essence of plaintiffs’ complaint is that defendants’ implicit representation that Lights were healthier led them to buy Lights in greater quantity than they otherwise would have and at an artificially high price, resulting in plaintiffs' overpayment for cigarettes.  Plaintiffs allege claims arising from their purchase of Lights from 1971, when defendants first introduced Lights, until the date on which trial commences.

With respect to the plaintiffs’ RICO claims, Judge John Walker in the Second Circuit’s opinion noted that Section 1964(c) of Title 18 (“civil RICO”) gives private citizens a cause of action under RICO by providing that “[a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of [RICO's substantive provisions] may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee.”18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). To fulfill the requirement that the injury occur “by reason of” a defendant's action, a plaintiff must show “that the defendant's violation not only was a ‘but for’ cause of his injury, but was the proximate cause as well.”Holmes v. Sec. Investor Prot. Corp., 503 U.S. 258, 268 (1992); see also Commercial Cleaning Servs., L.L.C. v. Colin Serv. Sys., Inc., 271 F.3d 374, 380 (2d Cir.2001) ( “RICO's use of the clause ‘by reason of’ has been held to limit standing to those plaintiffs who allege that the asserted RICO violation was the legal, or proximate, cause of their injury, as well as a logical, or ‘but for,’ cause.”). “But for” causation is also known as “transaction causation,” or “reliance,” while proximate causation is often referred to as “loss causation.” See, e.g., Moore v. PaineWebber, Inc., 189 F.3d 165, 169-70 (2d Cir.1999); Powers v. British Vita, P.L.C., 57 F.3d 176, 189-90 (2d Cir.1995); see also Dura Pharms., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 341 (2005) (noting that reliance is “often referred to ... as ‘transaction causation’ ”). Thus, a plaintiff asserting a civil RICO claim must be able to support allegations of (1) a RICO violation, (2) injury, and (3) transaction and loss causation. First Nationwide Bank v. Gelt Funding Corp., 27 F.3d 763, 769 (2d Cir.1994). Judge Walker noted that to prevail in their argument for class certification, plaintiffs must establish that the issues of injury and causation do not defeat the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3).  For the reasons set forth in the opinion, the Second Circuit found that plaintiffs failed to meet this burden.

SCOTUS to hear RICO fraud reliance case.

On January 4, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to determine “Whether reliance is a required element of a RICO claim predicated on mail fraud and, if it is, whether that reliance must be by the plaintiff.” According to the grant of the petition for a writ of certiorari in John Bridge, et al. v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity, et al., the brief of petitioners is to be filed on or before Thursday, February 14, 2008. The brief of respondents is to be filed on or before Wednesday, March 12, 2008. A reply brief, if any, is to be filed in accordance with Rule 25.3 of the Rules of the Court. RICO Law Blog will keep an eye on this important case,

American International Group Inc. (AIG) sued under RICO

Carissa Wyant of the Minneapolis / St. Paul Business Journal reported in its July 20, 2007 edition that the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Reinsurance Association and the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Insurers Association filed suit against American International Group Inc. on July 17, 2007 seeking to recover more than $100 million in damages for fraudulent actions and violations of the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The suit filed in United States District Court for the District of Minnesota alleges that New York-based AIG understated its workers' compensation business in Minnesota for the past 22 years, in order to avoid paying part of a collective statewide fund covering large workplace injury claims. AIG representatives said the company does not comment on ongoing litigation.

The WCRA is a nonprofit association of about 600 members, which was created by the Minnesota Legislature in 1979 to supply reinsurance to all insurers and self-insurers in Minnesota. This reinsurance is used to pay catastrophic workers' compensation claims to injured Minnesota workers.

RICO Law Blog will keep an eye on this one. AIG will likely make a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule 12(b)(6) within the next few weeks.