New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Civil RICO Claim Arising out of Ponzi Scheme Precluded by PSLRA Bar — Criminal Conviction Exception Limited to the Person Convicted

Download PDF

From Smith v. Copeland, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51157 (N.D. Ga. May 21, 2010):

Plaintiffs allege that they are victims of a $ 40 million Ponzi scheme orchestrated primarily by Defendant Robert Copeland who pled guilty to criminal charges. Plaintiffs contend that Copeland and his "Salesperson Defendants" defrauded investors by selling sham securities to fuel the scheme. ***

Defendant Stephens moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' civil RICO claims under Fed.R.Civ. P. 12(b)(6) asserting that (1) the civil RICO action is barred by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 1964***.

The PSLRA serves to preclude plaintiffs from asserting RICO claims based upon predicate acts that amount to securities fraud. However, the Court notes that it is not an absolute bar to a RICO action involving securities. Jacoboni v. KPMG, LLP, 314 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1176 (M.D. Fla. 2004). The Court must determine whether the conduct plead as the predicate offense is actionable as securities fraud. OSRecovery, Inc. v. One Groupe Int'l, Inc., 354 F. Supp. 2d 357, 368-9 (S.D. N.Y. 2005). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' Ponzi scheme was securities fraud and the Court must accept these allegations as true for the purpose of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). *** This same Ponzi scheme is at the heart of this RICO action. Here, Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendant Stephens prepared or directed the fraudulent documents, but rather that he received 38 wire transfers of funds obtained by fraud and "induced Plaintiffs to enter into investments in fraudulent, fictitious real estate transactions." *** Plaintiffs allege that Defendant's investors were misled through uniform and systematic presentations premised on false promises into purchasing fraudulent and unregistered securities. However, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Stephens did more than induce investors, rather he "shared the common purpose of taking funds from Plaintiffs and the Class through fraud and distributing those funds to members of the enterprise."***

The Court finds that such alleged predicate actions are so closely connected and dependent upon the securities fraud as to amount to securities fraud. See Bald Eagle Area School Dist. v. Keystone Financial, Inc., 189 F. 3d 321, 328 (3d Cir. 1999). The actions which Plaintiffs allege Defendant Stephens committed are not "tangentially connected to the sale of securities" but rather at the very center of the scheme's success.... The alleged numerous acts of wire fraud are without a doubt "in connection with the purchase or sale of securities." Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b). Such actions taken to induce new investors into the scheme in an effort to keep the securities fraud Ponzi scheme alive and distribute the funds amount to conduct undertaken in connection with the purchase and sale of securities. Accordingly, the allegations against Defendant Stephens would be actionable under federal securities law and cannot support a civil RICO claim after enactment of the PSLRA. Defendant Stephens' Motion to Dismiss Counts I and II [96] is GRANTED. ***

[Footnote 4] Additionally, the "criminal conviction" exception to the PSLRA bar is inapplicable because only Defendant Copeland has been charged with any crime. 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) states in relevant part that the PSLRA's bar "does not apply to an action against any person that is criminally convicted in connection with the fraud." The exception is limited to those that have been convicted. See Florida Evergreen Foliage v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 165 F.Supp.2d 1345, 1357 (S.D. Fla. 2001).

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

RICO Causation: (1) State’s Misrepresentation to Federal Government That It Was Providing Plaintiffs with Mandated Special Education Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Injury Because The Failure to Provide The Education Was Not Caused by the Fraud on the Federal Government — (2) The Three Factors for Assessing RICO Causation — (3) Limits of the Second Circuit’s Decision in Alix v. McKinsey That Causation Can Be Established Where A Fraud On The Judiciary “Or Other Governmental Entity” Resulted In A Resource Going To Someone Less Deserving

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

RICO: Fraudulent Concealment Must Prevent Discovery of the Injury to Toll Statute of Limitations

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice