Litigation: Chasing away aiding and abetting liability
A recent 2nd Circuit decision resolves a split in the district courts regarding the scope of the RICO Amendment.
August 11, 2011 at 07:30 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
In a case of first impression, the court of appeals for the 2nd Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a plaintiff investment company's civil RICO claim against JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPMC) for allegedly aiding and abetting Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities (Madoff) in securities fraud. (MLSMK Investment Company v. JPMorgan Chase & Company, No. 10-3040-cv.) The decision resolves a split in the district courts regarding the scope of the RICO Amendment, extending the federal ban on civil RICO claims based on securities fraud to cover the “aiding and abetting” of such frauds, thereby preventing plaintiffs from collecting RICO's award of treble damages.
The decision should be welcomed with open arms. The plaintiff asserted New York state-law claims against JPMorgan, including aiding and abetting Madoff's breach of fiduciary duty, commercial bad faith and negligence. The 2nd Circuit had affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's state-law claims, focusing instead on plaintiff's federal claim for violations of the RICO statute.
Seeking treble damages under RICO, the complaint alleged that the defendants “knowingly and purposely” conspired with Madoff to “fleece” his victims, both through JPMC's trading with Madoff, as well as through the housing of the Madoff's account at JPMC's affiliate, providing services that were “integral to the functioning of the racketeering enterprise” and by engaging in RICO predicate acts, including “numerous interstate wire communications.” Plaintiff alleged a loss of $12.8 million due to its investment with Madoff between Oct. and Dec. 2008.
In detailing its racketeering allegations, plaintiff asserted that defendants became suspicious of Madoff's business, undertaking a “due diligence” investigation that revealed that the investment company was “a thoroughly fraudulent enterprise,” yet JPMC still provided market-making and banking services to plaintiff, deriving substantial fees. The complaint alleged that JPMC even developed a derivative product “specifically for use with Madoff-related investments.” It was in connection with the derivative product that JPMC allegedly became suspicious of Madoff's results, including the product's “consistently strong returns despite the market mayhem.”
Ultimately, plaintiff asserted that the failure to freeze Madoff's accounts at JPMC caused the defendants to become “liable for conspiracy to violate RICO by aiding and abetting Madoff's breach of fiduciary duty, commercial bad faith, and negligence.” The 2nd Circuit disagreed, finding the racketeering claims based on allegations of securities fraud were precluded by Section 107 of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), 18 U.S.C. §1964(c) (the “RICO Amendment”), which provides that “no person may rely upon any conduct that would have been actionable as fraud in the purchase or sale of securities to establish a violation of section 1962.”
Citing the reasoning in Fezzani v. Bear, Stearns & Company, No. 99 Civ. 0793 (S.D.N.Y. March 2, 2005), and other Southern District precedent, the 2nd Circuit concluded that Section 107 of the PSLRA “bars civil RICO claims alleging predicate acts of securities fraud, even where a plaintiff cannot itself pursue a securities fraud action against the defendant.” As a result, although plaintiff had pled only a civil RICO claim, and not fraud and RICO claims collectively, the 2nd Circuit found that where the complaint relied on allegations of fraud to establish liability under RICO, the RICO claims still fell “squarely within the scope of the PSLRA bar.” The court also noted that to hold otherwise would allow plaintiffs to artfully plead aiding and abetting a securities violation, in lieu of the violation itself, in order to obtain treble damages.
In short, the court held that the PSLRA's RICO Amendment did not allow plaintiff's civil RICO claim premised upon predicate acts of securities fraud, even where the plaintiff could not itself bring a private securities claim. Whether there will be agreement among the rest of the circuit courts remains to be seen.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllApple Disputes 'Efforts to Manufacture' Imaging Sensor Claims Against iPhone 15 Technology
Coinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250