Rjr Nabisco Case Study Summary Of Apple

RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. The European Community

Holding: A violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act may be based on a pattern of racketeering that includes predicate offenses committed abroad, provided that each of those offenses violates a predicate statute that is itself extraterritorial. However, a private RICO plaintiff must allege and prove a domestic injury.

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 4-3, in an opinion by Justice Alito on June 20, 2016. Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan joined as to Parts I, II, and III. Justice Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring in part, dissenting in part, and dissenting from the judgment, in which Justices Breyer and Kagan joined. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in part, dissenting in part, and dissenting from the judgment. Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

DateProceedings and Orders
Jul 2 2015Application (15A24) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 12, 2015 to July 27, 2015, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.
Jul 6 2015Application (15A24) granted by Justice Ginsburg extending the time to file until July 27, 2015.
Jul 27 2015Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 31, 2015)
Aug 21 2015Brief of respondents The European Community, et al. in opposition filed.
Aug 31 2015Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Washington Legal Foundation.
Sep 9 2015DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 28, 2015.
Sep 9 2015Reply of petitioners RJR Nabisco, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
Oct 1 2015Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Washington Legal Foundation GRANTED. Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
Oct 1 2015Petition GRANTED. Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Nov 5 2015Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners RJR Nabisco, Inc., et al.
Nov 6 2015Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or neither party received from counsel for the petitioners.
Nov 9 2015Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or neither party received from counsel for the respondents.
Nov 10 2015The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including December 1, 2015.
Nov 10 2015The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including January 15, 2016.
Nov 25 2015Further extension of time within which to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits to and including December 11, 2015.
Nov 25 2015Further extension of time within which to file respondents' brief on the merits to and including February 4, 2016.
Nov 30 2015Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED. Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
Dec 11 2015Brief of petitioners RJR Nabisco, Inc., et al. filed.
Dec 18 2015Brief amicus curiae of United States in support of vacatur filed.
Dec 18 2015Brief amici curiae of Washington Legal Foundation and Allied Educational Foundation filed.
Dec 18 2015Brief amicus curiae of The National Foreign Trade Council filed.
Jan 29 2016SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, March 21, 2016
Feb 4 2016Brief of respondents The European Community, et al. filed.
Feb 8 2016Record requested from U.S.C.A. 2nd Circuit.
Feb 8 2016Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
Feb 10 2016CIRCULATED.
Feb 10 2016Record received from U.S.C.A. 2nd Circuit is electronic.
Feb 11 2016Record from U.S.D.C. Eastern District of New York is electronic and located on PACER. Transcripts not available on PACER are electronic.
Feb 29 2016Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED. Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
Feb 29 2016Letter from counsel for the respondents regarding filing in the district court. (Distributed)
Mar 7 2016Reply of petitioners RJR Nabisco, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
Mar 21 2016Argued. For petitioners: Gregory G. Katsas, Washington, D. C. For United States as amicus curiae in support of vacatur: Elaine J. Goldenberg, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: David C. Frederick, Washington, D. C.
Jun 20 2016Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Alito, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy and Thomas, JJ., joined, and in which Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan, JJ., joined as to Parts I, II, and III. Ginsburg, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, dissenting in part, and dissenting from the judgment, in which Breyer and Kagan, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, dissenting in part, and dissenting from the judgment. Sotomayor, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Jul 22 2016JUDGMENT ISSUED

 

Detailed - and downright shocking - display of the egos and attitudes of hundreds of real people involved in the biggest private equity buyout of its day (and until relatively recent days). Describes far too many people to follow and too much detail, but the sheer magnitude of greed, excess and penis envy is amazing.



The DVD of the same title gives the abridged version of the story. It's quite hard to follow the story without knowing the background from the book. DVD also emphasizes Linda Robinso

Detailed - and downright shocking - display of the egos and attitudes of hundreds of real people involved in the biggest private equity buyout of its day (and until relatively recent days). Describes far too many people to follow and too much detail, but the sheer magnitude of greed, excess and penis envy is amazing.



The DVD of the same title gives the abridged version of the story. It's quite hard to follow the story without knowing the background from the book. DVD also emphasizes Linda Robinson's character and her role compared to the book.



0 comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *