Case of the Day: Tatung Co. v. Shu Tze Hsu, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157450 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2016)

Summary:

Plaintiff Taiwanese company had a judgment against a U.S. company enforceable in California, but allegedly could not collect on the judgment because the defendants engaged in a RICO conspiracy to drain the assets of the U.S. company through a series of fraudulent transfers. Defendants claimed that the RICO claim must be dismissed, because after RJR Nabisco, foreign injuries are not recoverable under RICO.

The court found that foreign plaintiffs may sue under RICO against U.S. defendants, even for foreign injuries. In doing so, the court disagreed with Bascunan v. Elsaca, 2016 WL 5475998 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2016), which held otherwise.

Takeaway:

Courts disagreeing with each other! Exciting times. Territoriality and extraterritoriality are hot topics now, and it will be extremely interesting to see how far RJR Nabisco will extend. Expect a circuit split on this topic at some point.