Another District Court Distinguishes Norex and Finds “Extraterritorial” Jurisdiction Under RICO


We recently posted on the analysis of the extraterritoriality issue stemming from Morrison but applied to RICO claims (here).  In that case, involving Chevron and the proceedings pending in the Southern District of New York, the District Court here determined that the Second Circuit's decision in Norex Petroleum Ltd. v Access Indus., Inc., 631 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 2010), did not determine that RICO claims (18 U.S.C. sec. 1962(c)) could never apply to cases where some of the conduct occurred outside the U.S.; that indeed the matters giving rise to the initial and significant RICO prosecutions included matters with substantial non-U.S. contacts; and that the key issues in that case led to the conclusion that RICO did apply to certain of the claims presented there.

In Aluminum Bahrain B.S.C. v. Alcoa, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 8-299 (W.D. Pa. 2012),  the District Court similarly analyzed claims under RICO.  Even though this particular had “previously acknowledged that the Morrison decision has been understood to preclude extraterritorial application of RICO, the Court here concluded that the allegations before it were not “essentially foreign” and came to a different result. 

The allegations here included that Alcoa, in and from the U.S. controlled the Australian affiliate alleged to have been the principal wrongdoer (alleged bribes to senior officials of Alba and the Government of Bahrain).  The complaint identified each of the members of the allegedly criminal enterprise as domestic U.S. persons or entities.  Numerous other U.S. contacts are alleged and mentioned in the Court’s decision. 

Of the Second Circuit’s decision in Norex, the District Court here said:

At first blush, the analogy is appealing. In Norex, the plaintiff was foreign, complaining of a conspiracy involving a foreign industry. Yet further analysis reveals the analogy wanting. In Norex, the court focused its analysis on determining whether a Morrison assessment should be done under the guise of subject matter jurisdiction or a failure to state a claim. Deciding on the latter, the court provided little commentary on what quality and quantity of contacts would qualify an enterprise as “domestic” under Morrison rather than “foreign.”


Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.