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

1) Rule 11 Sanctions: “No First Amendment Exception to a Rule 11 Violation” — “[T]he First Amendment Covers Novel, Nonfrivolous Arguments, But Many Frivolous Arguments Are Also Novel” (Good Quotes) — Frivolous To Continue To Make Rejected Novel Arguments; (2) FRAP 38 Sanctions: District Court In Best Position to Set Sanctions, Attorney’s Fees and Costs

3 Prerequisites for Inherent Power and § 1927 Sanctions in Second Circuit: (1) Bad Faith, (2) Conduct That Is Entirely Without Color [Thus, An Ill-Motivated Colorable Position Appears to Be Protected in the Second Circuit], and (3) Improper Purpose— “To Gain A Strategic Advantage” Is An Improper Purpose — Due Process Satisfied by Opponent’s Motion and Multiple Court Conferences, After Which Target Was Allowed to Submit Additional Letters

Inherent Power Sanctions — Untimeliness as Laches — Laches Properly Applied to Deny Sanctions Motion — Note Waived Defenses to Laches

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions: Substantial Justification or Harmless Error (Ninth Circuit Factors) — Erie: When State Supreme Court Has Not Squarely Addressed an Issue, Circuit Must Predict How It Would Rule, Using Intermediate Appellate Decisions, Decisions from Other Jurisdictions, Statutes, Treatises And Restatements for Guidance

(1) Appellate Review of Inherent Power Sanctions (7th Circuit): Factual Findings Reviewed for Clear Error, Choice of Sanction for Abuse of Discretion — 4-Element Test for Reversal; (2) Sanctions and Class Actions: Monetary Sanctions Properly Imposed on Defendants for Improper Communications with Class Members (Represented Parties) — “[I]f The Class And The Class Opponent Are Involved In An Ongoing Business Relationship, Communications From The Class Opponent To The Class May Be Coercive” (Good Quote); (3) Monetary Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger: If Same Fact-Gathering Would Have Been Conducted Absent The Misconduct, No But-For Causation — But Only “Rough Justice” Required, “Not Accountant-Like Precision” (Good Quote) — Once Misconduct Is Clear, Time Spent Ferreting It Out Compensable under Goodyear; (4) Goodyear Did Not Overrule Long-Standing Rule That Courts May Impose Modest Civil Monetary Sanctions to Curb Litigation Abuse; (5) Appellate Jurisdiction Lacking Where Sanctioned Attorney Fails to File Notice of Appeal and Lawyer’s Intent to Appeal Not Apparent from Client’s Notice; (5) Rule 11 Improper Purpose — Party May Have Many Purposes for Pursuing Claim — As Long As Claim Is Supported by Good Faith Belief in the Merits, “A Parallel Reason Does Not Violate Rule 11” — To Deny A Motion for Sanctions, The District Court Need Not Address Every Argument: “Arguments Clearly Without Merit Can, And For The Sake Of Judicial Economy Should, Be Passed Over In Silence” (Good Quote); Non-Monetary Sanction on Counsel: Complete Twice The Required Amount Of Professional Responsibility Hours For Her Next Continuing Legal Education Cycle Imposed By The State Bar

(1) Spoliation: Sanctions Are Warranted Only If the Movant Establishes That A Reasonable Trier of Fact Could Find That The Destroyed Evidence Would Support A Claim Or Defense — § 1927 Sanctions: “Courts Often Refuse to Award Sanctions When Both Parties Contributed to the Waste of Judicial Resources” (Good Quote)

No Sanctions Imposed on Counsel Who Submitted A.I.-Generated Phony Cases Without Checking Them in Good Faith on The Mistaken Assumption They Had Been Provided by Highly Respected Co-Counsel Rather Than His Criminally-Convicted, Disbarred Client — No Sanctions on Client Who Had No Access to LEXIS or Westlaw to Check the Phony Cases and Submitted Them in Good Faith: “It Would Have Been Downright Irrational For Him To Provide Fake Cases For [His Lawyer] To Include In The Motion Knowing They Were Fake —

(1) Electronic Spoliation — Rule 37(e)(2) Dismissal Sanction — Temporal Proximity of Spoliation to Production Due Date = Circumstantial Evidence of Intent; (2) While Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Abuse Of Discretion, Findings Of Fact Related To Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Clear Error; (3) Dismissal under Rule 37(e)(2) Plus Attorney’s Fees under Inherent Power Appropriately Combined [But see 2015 Advisory Committee Note: “New Rule 37(e) … authorizes and specifies measures a court may employ if information that should have been preserved is lost, and specifies the findings necessary to justify these measures. forecloses reliance on inherent authority or state law to determine when certain measures should be used.”]; (4) Compensatory Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger Appropriately Include Fees and Costs Resulting from Attempts to Settle Spoliation Motion

(1) FRAP 38 Sanctions Inapt for Appeal That Is Weak — “Borderline Frivolous” — Test Is Whether Appellant Should Have Known the Appeal Had Absolutely No Chance of Success — (2) Lay Opinion Testimony under Rule 701: Nub of Helpfulness Requirement Is to Exclude Testimony When the Witness Is No Better Suited Than the Jury to Assess the Issue; (3) Appeals: No Appeal from Denial of Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law Unless Appellant Made That Motion Before Case Was Submitted to Jury

(1) § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct After Obtaining Verdict: Filing Lis Pendens Based on False Statements and in Violation of Governing Law, Filing Fraudulent Abstracts of Judgment That Represented They Had Been Court-Issued; (2) Rule 37 Sanctions for Baseless Motion to Compel Required Unless Target Shows That the Motion Was Substantially Justified Or Other Circumstances Make An Award Of Expenses Unjust

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