as securities fraud.’ ” (Doc. # 318, p. 15.) Section 107 of the PSLRA, enacted as an amendment to the federal civil RICO statute, provides that “no person may rely upon any conduct that would have been actionable as fraud in the purchase or sale of securities to establish a violation of section 1962” unless the person who committed the fraud has been criminally convicted. 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). The Conference Committee Report accompanying the PSLRA states that the amendment was intended not only “to eliminate securities fraud as a predicate offense in a civil RICO action,” but also to prevent a plaintiff from “pleading other specified offenses, such as mail or wire fraud, as predicate acts under civil RICO if such offenses are based on conduct that would have been actiona 9th Cir. 2000) (<HOLDING>). As the Eleventh Circuit recently stated, “[a]
holding that the pslra bar applies even where a plaintiff cannot itself pursue a securities fraud action against the defendant holding that the rico bar applies even where the plaintiff does not have standing to bring a securities fraud action holding that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over rico claims and that plaintiffs federal rico claim was barred by res judicata since he failed to bring his rico claim along with his state fraud claims in prior state court action holding that a plaintiff cannot avoid the securities fraud exception by pleading mail fraud or wire fraud if the conduct giving rise to those offenses also amounts to securities fraud holding that plaintiff had standing to bring a rico conspiracy claim despite his inability to bring a substantive rico claim