Page 11 - Litigation

NYLJ.COM |
Litigation | MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2014 | S11

the federal postal system, no court has ever 15. Id. at 70 (quoting Morrison v. Nat’l Austl. Bank, 561
held that the mail fraud statute falls within U.S. 247, 130 S. Ct. 2869 at 2884 (2010)).
16. Id. (internal punctuation and quotations omitted).
the “class” of statutes “enacted because of 17. Id. at 70, 72.
the right of the government to defend itself.”53 18. Brief for the United States at 89.
Indeed, the focus of both the mail fraud and 19. Vilar, 729 F.3d at 71-72.
wire fraud statutes on “money or property” 20. Id. at 72-73.
21. Id. at 73, 75 (internal quotations omitted).
would appear to make them “exactly the 22. Id. at 73.
sort of statutory provision[s] [to] which the 23. Id. at 74 (quoting Bowman, 260 U.S. at 98).
Make informed strategic decisions. 24. Id.
presumption against extraterritoriality does 25. Id. at 67, 76-79.
26. Id. 76; 677 F.3d 60, 69 (2d Cir. 2012).
apply” according to Vilar.54
27. For a discussion of whether provisions of the
Win larger verdicts. With respect to the bank fraud statute, no Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protec-
reported case has considered how it should tion Act of 2010 granting courts “jurisdiction” over cer- tain actions superseded Morrison, see Roberta S. Karm-
Negotiate from strength.
be treated under Bowman. While the Second el, “The Application of ‘Morrison’ to SEC and Criminal
Circuit did state in United States v. Jacobs that Cases,” NYLJ (Oct. 17, 2013).
the bank fraud statute was “enacted to protect 28. See Morrison v. Nat’l Austl. Bank, 561 U.S. 247, 130
the inancial integrity of federally guaranteed S. Ct. 2869, 2878, 2883 (2010).
29. United States v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94, 98 (1922).
inancial institutions, and assure a basis for 30. Morrison, 561 U.S. 247, 130 S. Ct. at 2884.
Federal prosecution of those who victimize 31. 18 U.S.C. §§1501-13, 1516-21.
these banks through fraudulent schemes,” 32. Id. §§1512(h), 1513(d).
it seems unlikely that a statute focused on 33. See United States v. Walczak, 783 F.2d 852, 853- 54 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (court may hear claims
protecting private inancial institutions, and under 18 U.S.C. §1001 based on fraudulent statements
not the government, would fall within the made on a U.S. customs form in Canada).
34. 18 U.S.C. §§1956(c)(1) & (7), 1957(f).
class of statutes covered by Bowman.55
35. Id. §§1956(c)(4), 1957(f).
36. Id. §1956(b)(2), (f).
In sum, while Vilar suggests a potentially 37. Id. §1957(d)(2).
signiicant limitation on the extraterritorial 38. See, e.g., United States v. Galvis-Pena, Crim. Action
reach of white-collar criminal statutes, the full No. 1:09-CR-25-TCB-CCH-4, 2011 WL 7268437, at *7 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 6, 2011) (“[T]he plain language of [§1956] indi-
impact of the decision will depend on how cates a clear intent by Congress to apply the statute ex-
broadly courts construe the Bowman excep- traterritorially”), adopted as modiied on other grounds
tion to the presumption against extraterritori- by 2012 WL 425240 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 9, 2012).
ality. As the level of cooperation between the 39. See, e.g., United States v. Chao Fan Xu, 706 F.3d 965, 982 (9th Cir. 2013).
U.S. and global law enforcement authorities 40. United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 589 (1981)
has never been better and the geographic (internal quotation marks omitted).
reach of U.S. regulators has never been 41. See 18 U.S.C. §§1961, 1962(a)-(c).
broader, this will likely be a recurring issue 42. Norex Petroleum v. Access Indus., 631 F.3d 29, 32-33 (2d Cir. 2010) (per curiam).
upon which courts will be asked to provide 43. 783 F. Supp. 2d 23, 28 n.6 (D.D.C. 2011) (internal
further guidance in the coming years.
citations omitted).
44. Morrison v. Nat’l Austl. Bank, 561 U.S. 247, 130 S. Ct. 2869, 2881 (quoting United States v. O’Hagan, 521 U.S.
•••642, 651 (1997)).
24-HOUR FREE PREVIEW
••••••••••••••••••••••••••
45. United States v. Vilar, 729 F.3d 62, 76 (2d Cir. 2013).
1. 729 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 2013).
46. Id. at 75-79.
2. 561 U.S. 247, 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010).
3. Vilar, 729 F.3d at 67.
47. No. 11 Civ. 4904 (DLC), 2011 WL 3251813 at *2-4,
*6-7 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2011); see also S.E.C. v. Wyly, 788 F.
Quick access
4. Id. at 77.
Supp. 2d 92, 119-21 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).
5. Id. at 73 (citation omitted).
48. See S.E.C. v. Goldman Sachs & Co., 790 F. Supp. 2d
6. 260 U.S. 94, 98 (1922).
147, 163-65 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (applying Morrison to §17(a)
7. Id. at 97.
8. Id. at 98.
of the Securities Act of 1933).
49. 544 U.S. 349, 371-72 (2005).
9. Id.
50. E.g., United States v. Trapilo, 130 F.3d 547, 552 (2d
3 Full Case Views
10. Id.
Cir. 1997).
11. United States v. Vilar, 729 F.3d 62, 68 (2d Cir. 2013);
51. E.g., United States v. Singhal, 876 F. Supp. 2d 82, 97
Brief for United States of America at 4-7, United States v. Vilar, 729 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 2013) (No. 10-521-cr(L)) (Brief (D.D.C. 2012); also United States v. Kim, 246 F.3d 186, 189 (2d Cir. 2001).
for United States).
52. Trapilo, 130 F.3d at 552.
12. Vilar, 729 F.3d at 76-78, 78 n.12; Brief for Alberto 53. United States v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94, 98 (1922).
Advanced Search
Vilar at 65, United States v. Vilar, 729 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 2013) (No. 10-521-cr(L)).
54. 18 U.S.C. §§1341, 1342; United States v. Vilar, 729
F.3d 62, 74 (2d Cir. 2013).
13. Vilar, 729 F.3d at 68-9, 77. 55. 117 F.3d 82, 93 (2d Cir. 1997) (citations and internal
14. Id. at 69.
quotations omitted).

Product Design
15. Id.
Access a database of more than 180,000 verdicts 16. Id. at 126 n.3.
and settlements from the nation’s leading provider 17. Sage, 70 N.Y.2d 579.
of verdict and settlement research.
18. Id. at 584.
« Continued from page S7
19. Id.
ally equivalent. Adams v. Genie Indus., 14 N.Y.3d 535, 543 20. Id at 587.
Take VerdictSearch.com for a test-drive and see for (2010).
21. Id. at 586-87.
yourself how powerful, fast and easy to use it is.
3. 655 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2011).
22. Id.
4. Sage v. Fairchild-Swearingen, 70 N.Y.2d 579, 587 (1987). 23. Id. at 587.
24. Emslie I, at *4.
5. ‘“Imposition of this [strict product] liability rests
largely on considerations of public policy.’” Jaramillo 25. 725 A.2d 697, 702 (N.J. App. Div. 1999).
v. Weyerhaeuser, 12 N.Y.3d 181, 188 (2009) (quoting Suk- 26. 1995 WL 517298, at *2 (E.D. La. Aug. 28, 1995).
GET STARTED
ljian v. Ross & Son, 69 N.Y.2d 89, 94-95 (1986)).
27. 618 So.2d 473 (La. Ct. App., 4th 1993).
6. 32 N.Y.2d 330 (1973); Enright v. Eli Lilly & Co., 77 28. 927 S.W.2d 608, 616 (Tx. 1996).
N.Y.2d 377, 390 (1991) (describing Codling as the seminal 29. Healy v. McGhan Medical, 2001 WL 717110, at *3
verdictsearch.com
case adopting strict products liability in New York state).
7. Id. (citing Codling, 32 N.Y.2d at 340-42, and the Re- (Sup. Ct. Mass March 29, 2001); In re Minnesota Breast
statement [Second] of Torts § 402A, comment c).
Implant Litig., 36 F. Supp. 2d 863 (D. Minn. 1998). In Healy,
8. Sage, 70 N.Y.2d at 587.
plaintiffs brought a claim for negligent design instead of products liability because they could not show the im-
9. Emslie v. Borg-Warner Auto., 655 F.3d 123, 124 (2d plants were manufactured by 3M, an element required
Cir. 2011).
10. Id.
to establish a product liability claim. In In re Minnesota
VerdictSearch | 120 Broadway 5th Floor | New York, NY 10271 | 877-807-8076
11. Emslie v. Recreative Indus., 2010 WL 1840311, at *3 Breast Implant Litig., plaintiffs’ product liability claims
(W.D.N.Y. 2010) (Emslie I).
were dismissed against 3M because they were not the
12. Id. at *4.
entity which placed the product into the stream of com-
13. Id. at *4.
merce.
14. Emslie, 655 F.3d at 126.
30. Id.