885 F.3d 1090
7th Cir.2018Background
- Armada (Singapore) sued Amcol (Illinois) and Ashapura (India) after Ashapura breached two long-term shipping contracts; arbitration awards in favor of Armada were confirmed and registered in U.S. courts.
- Armada alleges Amcol, as Ashapura’s majority shareholder, engaged in schemes (e.g., insolvency proceedings, setoffs) to divest Ashapura of assets, frustrating Armada’s ability to collect its judgments and claims.
- Armada pleaded state-law claims and two private RICO counts alleging injury to its “business or property” (its judgment and litigation claims against Ashapura).
- After the Supreme Court decided RJR Nabisco requiring a “domestic injury” for private RICO suits, Amcol moved for judgment on the pleadings arguing Armada had not alleged a domestic injury.
- The district court entered judgment for Amcol on the RICO claims, concluding Armada’s injury was economic/intangible and therefore suffered at Armada’s principal place of business in Singapore.
- On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding Armada alleged injury to intangible litigation rights located at its principal place of business (Singapore), not a domestic injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Armada pleaded a “domestic injury” under RJR Nabisco for private RICO standing | Armada: its judgment and claims are property harmed by defendants’ racketeering and are located in the U.S., so injury is domestic | Amcol: the harmed property is intangible litigation rights; economic injury is felt at Armada’s principal place of business in Singapore, so not domestic | Held: Injury was to intangible litigation rights felt at Armada’s headquarters in Singapore; not a domestic injury, RICO claims fail |
| Whether a judgment/cause of action is tangible property for domestic-injury analysis | Armada: judgment is tangible property located in U.S. enforcement proceedings | Amcol: a judgment or cause of action is intangible (a chose in action), suffered at plaintiff’s residence | Held: Judgment/claims are intangible assets, not tangible property; therefore located at Armada’s principal place of business (Singapore) |
Key Cases Cited
- RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Cmty., 136 S. Ct. 2090 (2016) (announcing that private RICO plaintiffs must allege and prove a domestic injury)
- Bascuñán v. Elsaca, 874 F.3d 806 (2d Cir. 2017) (distinguishing domestic injuries to tangible property located in the U.S. from intangible economic harms felt at plaintiff’s residence)
- Pitts v. Unarco Indus., Inc., 712 F.2d 276 (7th Cir. 1983) (recognizing a cause of action as a form of property that can be injured)
- Blodgett v. Silberman, 277 U.S. 1 (1928) (holding the right to receive money is an intangible chose in action)