United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2019-04-22
18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
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; claim: (a), (c), (d)
Uncertainty
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
Element racketeering.mail-fraud: 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
Element racketeering.mail-fraud: 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
Misfit
None recorded
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 19
| Case | Culpable person (§ 1961(3)) distinct from the enterprise under (c) | Pattern of racketeering activity (§ 1961(5)): at least two predicate acts with relatedness and continuity | Racketeering activity (§ 1961(1) enumerated state and federal predicate offenses) | Collection of an unlawful debt (§ 1961(6)) — alternative to pattern of racketeering activity | Use or investment of racketeering income in an enterprise (§ 1962(a)) | Enterprise (§ 1961(4)): legal entity or association-in-fact |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Senior Health Ins. Co. of Pa. v. Beechwood Re Ltd. — 377 F. Supp. 3d 414 (2019) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2019 (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 7–12 of 19
| Case | Interstate or foreign commerce nexus | De minimis open-market securities investment proviso (§ 1962(a)) | Acquire or maintain interest in or control of an enterprise (§ 1962(b)) | Defendant employed by or associated with the enterprise (§ 1962(c)) | Conduct or participate in the conduct of enterprise affairs (§ 1962(c) operation or management test) | Conspiracy to violate § 1962(a), (b), or (c) (§ 1962(d)) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Senior Health Ins. Co. of Pa. v. Beechwood Re Ltd. — 377 F. Supp. 3d 414 (2019) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2019 (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 13–18 of 19
| Case | Civil RICO injury to business or property (18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)) | But-for and proximate causation ("by reason of", 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)) | Statute of limitations (4-year civil under Agency Holding; 5-year criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 3282) | Claim preclusion / release by prior class-action settlement | Civil aiding and abetting a RICO violation (rejected as a private cause of action) | Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy bar against successive RICO conspiracy/substantive prosecutions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Senior Health Ins. Co. of Pa. v. Beechwood Re Ltd. — 377 F. Supp. 3d 414 (2019) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2019 (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 19–19 of 19
| Case | Parol evidence rule raised to bar extrinsic evidence of fraudulent misrepresentations |
|---|---|
| Senior Health Ins. Co. of Pa. v. Beechwood Re Ltd. — 377 F. Supp. 3d 414 (2019) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2019 (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Senior Health Ins. Co. of Pa. v. Beechwood Re Ltd. — 377 F. Supp. 3d 414 (2019) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2019 — not · pleaded (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Continuity of predicate acts (closed-ended or open-ended continuity) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; claim: (a), (c), (d); party: Beechwood defendants (Beechwood Re, BAM, BBIL, BRILLC, Feuer, Taylor, Narain); count: civil RICO claims under § 1962(a), (c) and (d), Second Amended Complaint; theory: closed-ended continuity from misvalued performance-fee withdrawals, the only predicates outside the securities-fraud bar; subject: party=Beechwood defendants (Beechwood Re, BAM, BBIL, BRILLC, Feuer, Taylor, Narain); count=civil RICO claims under § 1962(a), (c) and (d), Second Amended Complaint; theory=closed-ended continuity from misvalued performance-fee withdrawals, the only predicates outside the securities-fraud bar 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. | surviving predicates (misvalued performance-fee withdrawals) span 22 months, under the Second Circuit two-year floor | 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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_377.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/377/0414-01; Unicode character offsets [23823:24046] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c74ec68ba461f362e9f20621deaf8ca808eb83739109e098a4cd911bc194df74.These withdrawals are alleged to have taken place over a 22-month periodSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_377.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/377/0414-01; Unicode character offsets [24073:24145] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c74ec68ba461f362e9f20621deaf8ca808eb83739109e098a4cd911bc194df74.the last withdrawal is alleged to have taken place more than two years after SHIP was induced to enter into the IMAsSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_377.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/377/0414-01; Unicode character offsets [24249:24365] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c74ec68ba461f362e9f20621deaf8ca808eb83739109e098a4cd911bc194df74.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."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_377.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/377/0414-01; Unicode character offsets [23224:23390] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c74ec68ba461f362e9f20621deaf8ca808eb83739109e098a4cd911bc194df74.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_377.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/377/0414-01; Unicode character offsets [29513:29701] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c74ec68ba461f362e9f20621deaf8ca808eb83739109e098a4cd911bc194df74. |
| Senior Health Ins. Co. of Pa. v. Beechwood Re Ltd. — 377 F. Supp. 3d 414 (2019) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2019 — not · law (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Mail or wire fraud predicate (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; claim: (a), (c), (d); party: Beechwood defendants (Beechwood Re, BAM, BBIL, BRILLC, Feuer, Taylor, Narain); count: civil RICO claims under § 1962(a), (c) and (d), Second Amended Complaint; theory: mail and wire fraud predicates whose gravamen is that plaintiff's assets were funnelled into Platinum-related securities; subject: party=Beechwood defendants (Beechwood Re, BAM, BBIL, BRILLC, Feuer, Taylor, Narain); count=civil RICO claims under § 1962(a), (c) and (d), Second Amended Complaint; theory=mail and wire fraud predicates whose gravamen is that plaintiff's assets were funnelled into Platinum-related securities Added in triage: the principal ground of dismissal. Under Zandford the fraud "coincided" with the securities transactions, so the PSLRA bar removes these predicates. | investment manager steering a client's funds into affiliated securities, pleaded as mail and wire fraud | In the instant case, by contrast, the SAC alleges that defendants funneled SHIP's assets into Platinum-related securities.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_377.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/377/0414-01; Unicode character offsets [25891:26013] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c74ec68ba461f362e9f20621deaf8ca808eb83739109e098a4cd911bc194df74.It is a case in which the funds were obtained precisely for the purpose of acquiring the securities.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_377.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/377/0414-01; Unicode character offsets [27573:27673] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c74ec68ba461f362e9f20621deaf8ca808eb83739109e098a4cd911bc194df74.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_377.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/377/0414-01; Unicode character offsets [29294:29512] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c74ec68ba461f362e9f20621deaf8ca808eb83739109e098a4cd911bc194df74.For the RICO Amendment to apply, "the fraud itself must be integral to the purchase and sale of the securities in question."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_377.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/377/0414-01; Unicode character offsets [24841:24965] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c74ec68ba461f362e9f20621deaf8ca808eb83739109e098a4cd911bc194df74.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_377.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/377/0414-01; Unicode character offsets [29080:29293] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c74ec68ba461f362e9f20621deaf8ca808eb83739109e098a4cd911bc194df74. |