Odyssey Re (London) Ltd. v. Stirling Cooke Brown Holdings Ltd.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “[t]o show transaction causation, ... plaintiff must show that it relied on defendant’s omission.”
• suggesting that where plaintiff connects a co-defendant to other co-defendant’s fraudulent misrepresentations, a cause of action for conspiracy to defraud may lie
• noting that an assertion that the co-defendant was aware of the fraudulent representations would support a finding that the plaintiff had adequately alleged conspiracy to defraud
• stating that to state a Section 1962(d) claim, a plaintiff must allege “as to each alleged co-conspirator: (1) an agreement to join the conspiracy; (2) the acts of each co-conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy; (3) that the co-conspirator knowingly participated in the same.”
• “Rule 9(b) is not satisfied by a complaint in which defendants are clumped together in vague allegations.”
• “Where a complaint does not delineate specifics regarding the defendant’s use of mail or wire, there can be no predicate act of mail or wire fraud.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).