United States Third Circuit

Plaintiffs' RICO action, predicated on mail and wire fraud, was properly dismissed for failure to plead with specificity per FRCP rule 9(b); their antitrust claim fails for the same reason. The term "prime rate" is imprecise; it is not fraudulent to use the term "prime rate" without disclosing that some borrowers obtain financing below that rate.

Appellate Information

• Argued 06/02/2003
• Decided 03/11/2004
• Published 03/11/2004

Judges

• Before SLOVITER, ALITO and ROTH, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Third Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Ira A. Schochet, G. Martin Meyers, (Argued), Denville, for Appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• William E. Deitrick, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, Chicago, Richard H. Klapper, Sullivan & Cromwell, New York, Kenneth N. Laptook, Wolff & Samson, P.C., Roseland, Peter E. Greene, (Argued), Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, New York, Joseph L. Buckley, Sills, Cummis, Radin, Tischman, Epstein & Gross, Newark, Gregory R. Haworth, Duane, Morris LLP, Newark, Anthony J. Laura, Reed Smith, LLP, Newark, Anthony P. La Rocco, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, LLP, Newark, Darryl J. May, Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP, Philadelphia, Frederick A. Nicoll, Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, Paramus, Brian J. McMahon, Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, Newark, William T. Marshall, Zeichner, Ellman & Krause, Roseland, Allen E. Molnar, Klett, Rooney, Lieber & Schorling, Newark, Mark S. Melodia, Reed Smith, Princeton Forrestal Village, Princeton, for Appellees.