Justia White Collar Crime Opinion Summaries

In 2009, fire severely damaged the insureds' home. They submitted a claim to under their homeowners’ policy the next day. The insurer began requesting documents, authorizations, and interviews and learned that the insureds had at least two businesses, held numerous personal and business accounts, and were involved in several lawsuits. A fire investigator concluded that the fire was intentionally set. The insurer requested additional documents: detailed phone records, bank histories, tax returns, and mortgage information and reminded the insureds that proof of loss was due by May 2. The insurer granted extensions; on the day of the final deadline the insureds delivered almost 1,000 pages of documents. Several months later, the insurer had not received most of the requested documents or an explanation why they could not be produced. After initially acknowledging their failure to produce the documents, the insureds attempted to impose a deadline for settlement of the $2.6 million claim. The district court entered summary judgment for the insurer in the insureds' breach of contract suit. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The insureds failed to perform the specific "duties after loss" listed in the policy.View "Foster v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co." on Justia Law

Following published stories about an investigation of their business practices, principals of a waste-management company improved their chances of winning a bid for a contract to refurbish garbage carts for the City of Chicago by slashing their bid. They encouraged other companies to bid in hopes of being hired as a subcontractor if another company won the bid. Each bidder had to certify that it had not entered into any agreement with any other bidder or prospective bidder relating to the price, nor any agreement restraining free competition among bidders. The company won the bid, and after a Justice Department investigation for antitrust violations, the principals were convicted of mail and wire fraud. The Seventh Circuit reversed, reasoning that the purpose of "colluding" with other potential bidders had not been to prevent them from underbidding but to provide insurance against the bid being rejected based on the earlier investigation. There was no harm as a result of the company encouraging additional bidders. View "United States v. Fenzl" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought this action against several defendants alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 28 U.S.C. 1961 et seq., and raising several state law causes of action. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the RICO claim and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The district court denied plaintiffs' subsequent motions to reconsider and to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs appealed. The court agreed with the district court that plaintiffs failed to plead the RICO elements of an enterprise, a pattern of racketeering activity, and at least two predicate acts committed by each defendant. The court found no error in the district court's denial of the motion to amend and could not say that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the state law claims. View "Crest Construction II, et al. v. Doe, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff wished to open a franchise in Puerto Rico and sought assistance from defendants, who asserted that it was a "done deal" and accepted a $400,000 retainer, a $100,000 business brokers' fee, and another $125,000 before informing plaintiff that the company at issue does not offer franchises. The district court awarded plaintiff $625,000. The First Circuit affirmed and remanded, rejecting a challenge to jury instructions on "dolo" (fraud) as involving harmless error. The evidence supported the verdict; the district court properly excluded evidence of a settlement agreement, but should have used that settlement to offset the verdict. View "Portugues-Santana v. Rekomdiv Int'l, Inc., " on Justia Law

This case involved a fallout of a $3.65 billion Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Minnesota businessman Thomas J. Petters. Appellants, investment funds (collectively, Ritchie), incurred substantial losses as a result of participating in Petters' investment scheme. Ritchie subsequently sued two officers of Petters' companies, alleging that they assisted Petters in getting Ritchie to loan over $100 million to Petters' company. Ritchie's five-count complaint alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1962(a), (c)-(d), common law fraud, and tortious inference with the contract. The court held that the district court erred in concluding that Ritchie's action was barred by a Receivership Order. The court also rejected arguments challenging the sufficiency of Ritchie's pleadings in the common law fraud count and did not to address other arguments related to abstention, lack of causation, and absolute privilege. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ritchie Capital Mgmt., et al. v. Jeffries, et al." on Justia Law

The company filed civil claims under Massachusetts state laws and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961 after discovering a scheme under which its employees and outsiders duped it into paying fraudulent invoices. Other defendants settled. After a trial, a former employee and an outsider, who advanced funds for the scheme, were found liable to the company. The First Circuit affirmed. There was sufficient evidence that the outsider knowingly and willfully participated in the scheme to support a verdict under RICO. That the jury did not find her liable for conspiracy to violate RICO is irrelevant. The evidence also supported a verdict of common law fraud; any error in a "willful blindness" jury instruction was harmless. Inclusion of anticipated attorney fees in an appeal bond was appropriate.