Source: cases/18usc1962/f-supp-3d-377-414-senior-health-v-beechwood.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f-supp-3d/volume_377/0414_01/index.html
Based on these cases, the Court concludes that SHIP's allegations are barred by the RICO Amendment insofar as the gravamen of SHIP's mail and wire fraud claims is that Beechwood tunneled SHIP's assets to Platinum.
However, as noted above, defendants' withdrawals are alleged to have taken place over only 22 months, which is less than the two years required to constitute a "pattern" for RICO purposes.
casedsl 1.2 # author: Flash1 (gemini-3.8-flash-high) # triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10) case /f-supp-3d/377/0414-01 name Senior Health Ins. Co. of Pa. v. Beechwood Re Ltd. cite 377 F. Supp. 3d 414 (2019) # IR court field says: United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York date 2019-04-22 url catalog/cases/f-supp-3d/volume_377/0414_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_377.jsonl sha1=9d7dea1a1978edca46ee1e633ed3017d8a65dd2d chars=35378 opinion op : majority by Rakoff @0..35378 controlling ? other: court corrected to S.D.N.Y. from internal evidence (Judge Rakoff; Local Rule 6.3; "this District"; Second Circuit law applied); the IR court field is wrong party p1 : Beechwood defendants (Beechwood Re, BAM, BBIL, BRILLC, Feuer, Taylor, Narain) count c1 : civil RICO claims under § 1962(a), (c) and (d), Second Amended Complaint theory t1 : mail and wire fraud predicates whose gravamen is that plaintiff's assets were funnelled into Platinum-related securities theory t2 : closed-ended continuity from misvalued performance-fee withdrawals, the only predicates outside the securities-fraud bar law 18usc1962 (a), (c), (d) role applied posture civil; insurer sued its reinsurer/investment manager, affiliates and executives under § 1962(a), (c) and (d) on mail and wire fraud predicates; Rule 12(b)(6) partial motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint; RICO claims dismissed as to all defendants result claimant-lost element racketeering.mail-fraud : not-satisfied [law] route _whole pattern investment manager steering a client's funds into affiliated securities, pleaded as mail and wire fraud party p1 count c1 theory t1 fact @25891..26013 [cuts-against] | In the instant case, by contrast, the SAC alleges that defendants funneled SHIP's assets into Platinum-related securities. fact @27573..27673 [cuts-against] | It is a case in which the funds were obtained precisely for the purpose of acquiring the securities. fact @29294..29512 [supports] | The only allegations to which this bar arguably does not apply are the allegations that defendants misrepresented the market value of SHIP's assets in connection with defendants' regular withdrawal of performance fees. rule @24841..24965 [quoted] | For the RICO Amendment to apply, "the fraud itself must be integral to the purchase and sale of the securities in question." held @29080..29293 | Based on these cases, the Court concludes that SHIP's allegations are barred by the RICO Amendment insofar as the gravamen of SHIP's mail and wire fraud claims is that Beechwood tunneled SHIP's assets to Platinum. ? route: no route for the PSLRA "RICO Amendment" (18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)): conduct actionable as securities fraud cannot be relied on as a mail/wire fraud predicate ? other: element fit -- the bar sits in § 1964(c), not in § 1962; recorded here because its effect is that the pleaded mail/wire fraud predicates cannot establish a violation gloss Added in triage: the principal ground of dismissal. Under Zandford the fraud "coincided" with the securities transactions, so the PSLRA bar removes these predicates. element pattern.continuity : not-satisfied [pleaded] route closed-ended pattern surviving predicates (misvalued performance-fee withdrawals) span 22 months, under the Second Circuit two-year floor party p1 count c1 theory t2 fact @23823..24046 [supports] | In the SAC, SHIP adds multiple allegations of fraud, including allegations regarding defendants' misrepresentations of the market value of SHIP's assets in connection with defendants' regular withdrawal of performance fees. fact @24073..24145 [cuts-against] | These withdrawals are alleged to have taken place over a 22-month period fact @24249..24365 [supports] | the last withdrawal is alleged to have taken place more than two years after SHIP was induced to enter into the IMAs rule @23224..23390 [quoted] | Where, as here, the pattern is closed-ended, the Second Circuit has held that "predicate acts occurring over less than a two-year period may not be deemed a pattern." held @29513..29701 | However, as noted above, defendants' withdrawals are alleged to have taken place over only 22 months, which is less than the two years required to constitute a "pattern" for RICO purposes. gloss Once the securities-related predicates are barred, the remaining predicates cover only 22 months, short of the two years the Second Circuit requires for closed-ended continuity; the earlier inducement acts, which would have stretched the period past two years, fall within the bar.