Whether only the entity sustaining the greatest direct injury may be considered a victim for the purposes of determining if there is closed-or-open-ended-continuity sufficient to establish a pattern of racketeering-activity under-RICO

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether only the entity sustaining the greatest direct injury may be considered a victim for the purposes of determining if there is closedor open-ended continuity sufficient to establish a pattern of racketeering activity under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 (“RICO”)? Whether racketeering activity committed for over two years, that inflicts multiple, distinct injuries upon multiple victims is nevertheless insufficient to form a pattern under RICO if the defendant’s related schemes have the primary goal of defrauding a limited number of victims, or if the activity concerns an ongoing project between the defendant and the primary victim? Whether racketeering activity is insufficient to fulfill the requirements of a RICO pattern of open-ended continuity if it concerns two schemes that are “inherently terminable”, regardless of how far into the future the endpoint is, or how great the defendant’s incentive is to postpone it continuously? Whether, on a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion, courts should dismiss a civil RICO claim for lack of openended continuity where the complaint does not imply the racketeering activity would cease, the defendant has consistently engaged in wire fraud and has also engaged in money laundering and non-predicate criminal acts, and the nature and extent of the defendant’s dealings with clients other than the plaintiff is within the defendant’s exclusive knowledge?