RICO Lawyer & Attorney : Thomas Walker : Cosho Humphrey Law Firm : RICO Act, Federal and State Racketeering Litigation, Boise Idaho

The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed a jury verdict awarding $2.5 million to the American Federation of Teachers-Oregon, AFT, AFL-CIO and against Oregon Taxpayers United Pac, an Oregon political committee and the Oregon Taxpayers United Education Foundation, an Oregon nonprofit corporation in American Fed. Teachers v. Oregon Taxpayers United,--- P.3d ----, 2008 WL 2636555 (Or.)).This case required the court to interpret and apply the Oregon Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (ORICO).  A jury found that defendants ‒ a political action committee and a nonprofit corporation controlled by the same individuals ‒ engaged with others in a pattern of racketeering activity, as defined in ORICO, by forging signatures to qualify two ballot measures for the 2000 general election and by filing false statements with the state from 1998 through 2000 concerning their expenditures and contributions. The jury also found that defendants' illegal conduct injured plaintiffs-two labor organizations-that spent substantial amounts of money opposing the ballot measures. The jury determined that plaintiffs had suffered damages of approximately $840,000, which the trial court trebled pursuant to ORICO. The trial court entered a money judgment in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of approximately $2.5 million and issued an injunction barring defendants from engaging in certain activities. The Court of Appeals reversed one part of the judgment, but otherwise affirmed.

On review, defendants argued that, even if their acts constituted ORICO violations, those acts were not the cause of plaintiffs' injuries and, therefore, that plaintiffs were not “injured by reason of” defendants' acts within the meaning of ORINCO. The Oregon Supreme Court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to permit a jury to find that plaintiffs were “injured by reason of” defendants' conduct.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In Liquidation Commission of Banco Intercontinental, S.A. v. Renta, --- F.3d ----, 2008 WL 2446320 (C.A.11 (Fla. June 19, 2008), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") can be applied extraterritorially. This case is a civil RICO and fraudulent transfer case arising out of the 2003 collapse of Banco Intercontinental SA (BanInter), which at that time was among the largest banks in the Dominican Republic. After its collapse, the affairs of BanInter were taken over by the Liquidation Commission, a receivership established by the Dominican government. The Commission brought this suit against Luis Alvarez Renta, a Florida businessman, claiming that Renta, with the help of BanInter insiders, wrongfully diverted millions in BanInter funds to finance other business ventures and personal expenses.

Three RICO claims and one fraudulent transfer claim were tried to a jury, which returned a verdict for the Liquidation Commission in all respects. After trebling of the racketeering damages, the judgment totaled approximately $177 million.

Renta appealed, arguing that the entire case should have been dismissed for forum non conveniens, that the RICO claims should have been dismissed for unripeness and because the statute cannot apply extraterritorially. Judge Kravitch, writing for the panel of three judges, upheld the District Court’s judgment. With regarding to the extraterritorial issue, Judge Kravitch framed the initial question as whether Congress intended the statute in question to apply to conduct occurring outside the United States. The Court noted that some courts have held that RICO does not apply to conduct outside of the United States. However, the more widely accepted view, and the one the Eleventh Circuit adopted, is that RICO may apply extraterritorially if conduct material to the completion of the racketeering occurs in the United States, or if significant effects of the racketeering are felt in the United States.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On June 9, 2008 Justice Thomas delivered the opinion in Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co., --- S.Ct. ----, 2008 WL 2329761 (U.S.) for a unanimous court holding that a plaintiff asserting a RICO claim predicated on mail fraud need not show, either as an element of its claim or as a prerequisite to establishing proximate causation, that it relied on the defendant's alleged misrepresentations. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO or Act), 18 U.S.C. 1961 - 1968, provides a private right of action for treble damages to “[a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation” of the Act's criminal prohibitions.  The question presented in this case is whether a plaintiff asserting a RICO claim predicated on mail fraud must plead and prove that it relied on the defendant's alleged misrepresentations.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 Melvyn Weiss, the plaintiffs’ lawyer who pioneered a controversial and lucrative area of law suing corporations on behalf of shareholders, was sentenced on June 2nd in federal court in Los Angeles to 30 months in prison. Weiss pleaded guilty in March to racketeering conspiracy in connection with his former law firm’s alleged improper payments of kickbacks to class-action clients.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Although not involving a civil RICO claim, the court in Connor v. Sun Trust Bank, 2008 WL 623027 (N.D.Ga. Mar. 5, 2008) sanctioned the defendant for failing to produce an email.  Emails are often important evidence in civil RICO cases.  So this decision is noteworthy.  In the Connor case the plaintiff alleged interference and retaliation claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).  The plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions based on the defendant’s failure to produce a highly relevant email during discovery. The plaintiff located, through other means, a relevant email that explained her dismissal to other employees. The defendant moved for summary judgment relying on their 30-day email destruction policy which automatically deleted emails that were thirty days old, unless they were first archived by the user. The court, unpersuaded by the defendant’s reasoning, granted the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and issued an adverse jury instruction.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A national class action was certified on March 19, 2008 in New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund v. First DataBank, Inc., 2008 WL 723774 (D.Mass.) against First DataBank, Inc. and McKesson Corporation. Plaintiffs allege that First DataBank and McKesson engaged in a racketeering enterprise (the “Scheme”) to fraudulently state the “average wholesale price” (“AWP”) for numerous prescription pharmaceuticals beginning in late 2001, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1964 and California state law. The Scheme allegedly jacked up the AWP by five percent for over 400 brand-name, self-administered drugs sold through retail pharmacies, including mail order (the “Marked Up Drugs”). This allegedly fraudulent price hike caused damages to consumers and 11,000 third party payors (“TPPs”) across the nation.

To recap the allegations, beginning in late 2001, First DataBank, a drug pricing publisher, and McKesson, a drug wholesaler, reached a secret agreement to raise the Wholesale Acquisition Cost (“WAC”) to AWP spread from 20% to 25% for the over four hundred Marked Up Drugs. McKesson communicated these new 25% WAC to AWP markups to First DataBank, which then published AWPs with the new markup. To conceal the Scheme, McKesson and First DataBank agreed to effectuate price changes only when some other WAC-based price announcement was made by a drug manufacturer. By 2002, McKesson estimated that 95% of all prescription drug manufacturers used the inflated 25% markup, and that, by 2004, 99% of all prescription drug manufacturers did so. The Scheme ended on March 15, 2005, when First DataBank disclosed that it had ceased to conduct surveys of the market to obtain AWP information, contradicting prior statements.

The Scheme allegedly resulted in higher profits for retail pharmacies that purchase drugs on the basis of WAC, but get reimbursed on the basis of AWP.  According to the Plaintiffs, McKesson implemented the Scheme in order to provide this greater AWP “spread” to important retail pharmacy clients like Rite Aid and Walmart as well as its own pharmacy related businesses.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On February 13, 2008, Chief Judge Curtis L. Collier of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee, Winchester Division, granted Tyson Foods’ motion for summary judgment in a lengthy, vigorously contested civil case brought by a class of current and former employees at several chicken processing plants. The plaintiffs brought the lawsuit under the civil provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962, 1964. The plaintiffs alleged that Tyson was a member of a conspiracy to knowingly bring illegal immigrants into the United States and employ them in violation of United States Immigration laws. This alleged conspiracy involved prolonged efforts to harbor and conceal these illegal immigrants from detection by the proper authorities. The plaintiffs claimed that, by hiring and harboring illegal immigrants, Tyson was thus able to pay less than the going market wage to its employees. As a result, plaintiffs, as legally-authorized employees, were paid less than they should have been as a result of Tyson’s use of illegal alien labor. Plaintiffs sought to recover damages in the amount of triple the difference between their artificially-depressed wages and the competitive market wages Plaintiffs should have been paid.

Judge Collier concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish a RICO claim predicated on evidence showing Tyson had at least ten illegal aliens employed at each of its facilities, and that Tyson had actual knowledge each facility employed at least ten individuals who were unauthorized to work in the United States and were brought into the country for purposes of illegal employment.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

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,

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

The plaintiffs in a lawsuit accusing Tyson Foods Inc. of hiring illegal aliens to work at poultry plants are focusing on the meat producer’s relationship with the League of Latin American Citizens. The class-action suit in U. S. District Court in Eastern Tennessee claims Springdale-based Tyson Foods knowingly hired illegal aliens to work for wages below what American workers would take. It was filed in April 2002 on behalf of former Tyson workers in several states, not including Arkansas. Trial is set for March 3, 2008.  

The plaintiffs in Trollinger v. Tyson are chicken plant workers who said they were harmed by a scheme by Tyson’s top management to depress wages, court documents state. “We believe Tyson has used its relationship with LULAC to help carry out a ‘willful blindness’ policy of hiring illegal workers,” said the plaintiffs ’ attorney, Howard W. Foster of Chicago. “Tyson is very close with LULAC, especially in Springdale, and we’re alleging that the groups have agreed not to investigate workers who are suspected illegal aliens.” Last week, the former director of the Arkansas chapter of the League of Latin American Citizens filed a motion to avoid giving a deposition in the case. In October, LULAC’s Housing Commission fought subpoenas seeking evidence in the case.

Tyson spokesman Gary Mickelson said the company continues to deny claims in the suit and will file a motion for summary judgment mid-month. “We have a zero-tolerance policy for hiring people who are not authorized to work in the United States,” Mickelson said. “We value our relationships with various advocacy groups, including those representing the Hispanic community. Claims that those relationships are improper are not only false, but they are absurd.”

Mr. Foster, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, commented that this is one of the first suits to allege “illegal immigrant hiring scheme” under the RICO. RICOLaw Blog will keep an eye on this case.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Supreme Court on Monday October 15^th rejected an appeal by Microsoft Corp. and a unit of Best Buy Co. to dismiss a lawsuit alleging violation of racketeering laws through fraudulently signing up customers for Microsoft's online service.

The companies asked the justices to overturn a May ruling by the San Francisco-based U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which said the civil suit could proceed. The Supreme Court is letting that ruling stand, which means the class-action lawsuit involving thousands of consumers with complaints against the companies will be litigated in federal district court.

Under a joint venture, Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft invested $200 million in Richfield, Minn.-based Best Buy in April 2000 and agreed to promote the retailer's online store through its Internet access service, MSN. In turn, Best Buy agreed to promote MSN in its stores.

The dispute began in 2003, when James Odom sued the companies after purchasing a laptop computer at Best Buy.

Best Buy allegedly signed up Odom for a six-month free trial of MSN with the credit card he used to pay for the computer. After the trial ended, Microsoft began charging him for the account.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

A New Jersey federal judge on Friday, September 28^th, threw out the remaining racketeering claims pending against several dozen insurers and brokers in a class action lawsuit stemming from industry wide investigations into bid-rigging and client-steering allegations.

The decision, which follows a recent ruling dismissing antitrust claims against the brokers and insurers, resolves the major claims in the consolidated litigation brought on behalf of commercial property/casualty insurance policyholders and employee benefit plan sponsors, who sued the firms following the investigations initiated by then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.

Plaintiffs alleged that the companies engaged in a conspiracy in which they allocated clients, fixed prices and restrained trade in violation of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the Sherman Antitrust Act. In earlier rulings, Judge Brown and a previously assigned judge rejected antitrust and RICO allegations against the insurers and brokers. Judge Brown earlier this year gave plaintiffs a final chance to amend their filings and bolster their case with supplemental pleadings.

After ruling in late August that the consolidated suit lacked factual support for claims of a widespread antitrust conspiracy, U.S. District Judge Garrett E. Brown Jr. said Friday the suit also lacked factual evidence of a RICO enterprise.

“Plaintiffs’ allegations offer nothing more than a kaleidoscope of acts executed by a kaleidoscope of actors, and combine broker-defendants and insurer-defendants in such a fashion that the court is unable to discern any systemic permutation,” Judge Brown wrote in his 73-page decision. “While discussing dozens of transactions and hundreds of actors, plaintiffs fail to outline even a single set of actors that interacted with each other and executed their transactions systemically.”

The plaintiffs alleged the brokers and insurers participated in the operation or management of a RICO enterprise by, among other things, reaching agreements with each of the insurers regarding the amount of contingent commissions to be paid to the broker and the level of business to be steered to each insurer defendant and then coordinated the concealment of the scheme, according to court papers.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

The Franchise Opportunity WebLog posted the following report on August 16, 2007:

Quizno’s might have been one of the first chains in the country to market toasted subs, but it’s the franchisees who are feeling toasted right now. A class action suit has been filed in U.S. District Court in Colorado against Quizno’s.

The class action lawsuit was announced in a press release by the Toasted Subs Franchisee Association, Inc.. Their class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of an estimated 5,000 Quizno's franchisees across the country according to the press release. The franchisees have alleged that Quinzo’s has violated a collection of five different laws.

These charges allege that they have broken laws such as statutory and common law fraud and violated both federal and state antitrust laws. Allegations also include that Quizno's violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO Act). Franchisees are also claiming that Quizno’s is guilty of breach of contract, along with violating Colorado’s franchise and consumer protection laws.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks