because Boesky’s reputation and unlawful activities — none of which otherwise affected the six companies — had inflated stock prices in general, they met none of these definitions and their injury was too remote to recover. By contrast, here Galerie Furstenberg was a direct competitor of defendants. As such, it alleges that defendants’ sale of counterfeit Dalis “deprived plaintiff of its rightful ownership of, and interest in, its property rights and/or the exclusive rights granted to plaintiff by Dali, and of the opportunity to earn profits from the exercise of those rights” as well as “injured, undermined, and compromised plaintiffs professional reputation in the art community.” (Complaint, ¶ 31) This alleged injury is cognizable under RICO. See Sperber v. Boesky, 849 F.2d at 63 (<HOLDING>) (quoting Sedima, 473 U.S. at 519, 105 S.Ct. at
recognizing that interpreting the flsa to apply to a handler of any good which has moved interstate would negate the significance of the clause and ignore the intent of congress to create a distinction between certain workers whose activities were covered by the flsa and others whose activities were not holding that the exclusionary rule is available only to the person whose constitutional rights were violated in the gathering of challenged evidence the remedy for violation of the privacy act is vested by statute in the individual whose records were improperly released not in a third party criminal defendant against whom the records are used recognizing congresss concern for the competitors and investors whose businesses and interests were harmed  or whose competitive positions decline because of infiltration in the relevant market holding that proof of relevant market is essential under  2 holding that  510 provides a remedy for employees whose pension rights have vested and whose  injury is the lost opportunity to accrue additional benefits