John Busby, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Crown Supply, Inc.; Hammermill Paper Co.; Omer Fortier; Kevin McClamroch; Bruce Lang; Michael Almeida; Linda Ambrus; Richard D. Childers; Richard Reeves

Summary

We need to summarize this case for search indexing. The case is from the Fourth Circuit, 1990, published. It involves a civil RICO action by an employee against his employer for fraudulent schemes to reduce commissions. Key legal topics: RICO, pattern of racketeering activity, investment use rule, person/enterprise distinction under §1962(a) and (c). Holdings: (1) The district court's dismissal for lack of pattern was reversed in light of H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell; (2) The "investment use" rule (

Holdings

1. The allegations of a ten-year scheme to defraud multiple salesmen of commissions satisfy the pattern requirement under H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell.
2. The 'investment use' rule is rejected; a plaintiff may recover under §1962(a) for injuries caused by the predicate racketeering acts, not only for injuries from the use or investment of the proceeds.
3. The person and enterprise need not be separate under §1962(a); they may be identical. The court overruled its prior holding in United States v. Computer Sciences Corp. to the extent it required distinctness for §1962(a).

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint alleged a pattern of racketeering activity under the RICO statute.
2. Whether the 'investment use' rule applies to claims under 18 U.S.C. §1962(a), requiring injury from the investment or use of racketeering proceeds rather than from the predicate acts themselves.
3. Whether, under §1962(a), the 'person' charged with a violation must be separate and distinct from the 'enterprise.'

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded