Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Access Industries, Inc.
631 F.3d 29
| 2d Cir. | 2010Background
- Norex alleges a massive racketeering scheme to seize control of Yugraneft and the Russian oil industry.
- Defendants include foreign parties and entities, with actions tied to TNK and Yugraneft.
- Plaintiff alleges acts in the United States (mail/wire fraud, money laundering, Hobbs Act, Travel Act, bribery) to further the scheme.
- Original complaint filed February 2002; district court dismissed on forum non conveniens, reversed on appeal, remanded.
- On remand, defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction arguing extraterritoriality; Morrison was decided during briefing.
- Court proceeds to treat extraterritorial reach as a 12(b)(6) merits issue under Morrison's framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RICO has extraterritorial reach for a private claim. | Norex argues broad enterprise definitions affect foreign commerce. | Morrison forecloses extraterritorial reach absent congressional intent. | Extraterritorial reach not available; claim dismissed on merits under 12(b)(6) grounds. |
| Whether Morrison's merits approach applies to this RICO case. | Morrison allows analysis under merits, not jurisdiction. | Morrison requires treating extraterritoriality as a merits issue. | The extraterritorial reach must be analyzed under Rule 12(b)(6) merits framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010) (extraterritorial application requires explicit congressional intent; presumption against extraterritoriality)
- North South Finance Corp. v. Al-Turki, 100 F.3d 1046 (2d Cir.1996) (RICO lacking explicit extraterritorial application; informs current framework)
- Capital Ventures Int'l v. Republic of Arg., 552 F.3d 289 (2d Cir.2009) (reaffirms de novo review and framework for jurisdiction/merits discussion)