has “no requirement of some overt act ..., unlike the general conspiracy provision, which requires that at least one of the conspirators have committed an act to effect the object of the conspiracy.” The amended complaint alleges facts sufficient to demonstrate, if proven, that each of the Counter/Third-Party Defendants and Greco agreed to further the fraudulent scheme as well as the resulting injuries. The Counter/Third-Party Defendants further allege that the RICO con spiracy claim (Count II) is entirely depen-dant on the substantive RICO claim (Count I). This proposition is incorrect. Salinas, 118 S.Ct. at 478(upholding a RICO conspiracy conviction despite defendant’s acquittal on the substantive RICO charge); Rehkop v. Berwick Healthcare Corp., 95 F.3d 285, 287 (3rd Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). A plaintiff asserting a violation of §
holding that union members had standing to bring rico claims for reduced compensation under collective bargaining agreement holding that plaintiff had standing to bring a rico conspiracy claim despite his inability to bring a substantive rico claim holding that plaintiffs cannot claim that a conspiracy to violate rico existed if they do not adequately plead a substantive violation of rico 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