Jack Fields: “we need only compare the provisions of this legislation with those of the RICO statute in order to identify those…”

“we need only compare the provisions of this legislation with those of the RICO statute in order to identify those reforms that plaintiffs' attorneys will be able to avoid. H.R. 1058, this legislation, has a losers pay provision. RICO does not. H.R. 1058 preserves a one year statute of limitation. The RICO statute of limitations is longer. H.R. 1058 limits joint and several liability to knowing securities fraud; RICO does not. The list continues. But the point is clear, unless we eliminate the RICO alternative, our reforms under this legislation will be undermined. The U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Marshall, and the Judicial Conference have all recognized the ability of plaintiffs' attorneys to bring meritless actions under RICO and leverage substantial payments for defendants through such actions. As Justice Marshall explained about civil RICO actions in 1985, and I quote: Many a prudent defendant, facing a ruinous exposure, will decide to settle even a case with no merit. It is thus not surprising that civil RICO has been used for extortive purposes, giving rise to the very evils that it was designed to combat. Mr. Chairman, we enacted civil RICO many years ago to provide private citizens with a weapon against organized crime and racketeering. We did not intend RICO to be a supplement to the Federal securities laws. We never intended to give trial lawyers treble damages in these types of civil lawsuits.…”