As noted in the title, civil RICO claims are on such a bad losing streak at the pleading stage in the Commercial Division that they’re beginning to rival the New York Mets. And that’s coming from a die-hard Mets fan.
As my colleague, Viktoriya Liberchuk, recently blogged, judges in the Commercial Division are quick
Courts continue to refer to federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) claims as “potent weapons” that are equivalent to a “thermonuclear device” in cases involving criminal racketeering activity. So why are we seeing RICO claims in ordinary business litigation disputes, including in the Commercial Division, that bear little to no resemblance to criminal
“Successor liability”, is it a theory or distinct claim or cause of action?
In a recent decision, Justice Sherwood analyze
d the applicability of successor liability as a distinct cause of action, rather than merely a theory of liability in New York. In Meyer v Blue Sky Alternative Investments LLC, plaintiff Meyer moved to amend