## Facts

- Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd., a boxing-match promoter, sued Don King under RICO § 1962(c).
- The complaint alleged that King, in his individual capacity, conducted the affairs of Don King Productions (a corporation) through a pattern of racketeering activity.
- The alleged RICO “enterprise” was Don King Productions; the alleged RICO “person” was King as a natural person.
- The district court dismissed the action, concluding King was not distinct from his corporation for § 1962(c) purposes.
- The Second Circuit affirmed on the view that § 1962(c) requires a “person” and a distinct “enterprise,” and that King, as sole shareholder and corporate officer acting within corporate authority, was not distinct from the corporation.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether that interpretation of § 1962(c) was correct.

## Issues

1. Whether RICO § 1962(c)’s “person–enterprise” distinctness requirement is satisfied when the defendant is a corporate officer and sole shareholder sued as an individual and the alleged enterprise is the corporation he owns and operates.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed and remanded.
- A natural person who owns and runs a corporation is legally distinct from the corporation, satisfying § 1962(c)’s requirement of a “person” separate from the “enterprise.”
- The distinctness requirement is met by the formal legal separation created by incorporation, even when the individual acts within the scope of corporate authority.

## Legal Principles

- To establish liability under RICO § 1962(c), a plaintiff must allege two distinct entities: (1) a RICO “person” and (2) an “enterprise” that is not merely the same “person” under another name.
- RICO’s definitions support treating an “individual” as a “person” and a “corporation” as an “enterprise,” permitting § 1962(c) claims where an employee/officer conducts the corporation’s affairs through racketeering.
- For § 1962(c), a corporate owner/employee is distinct from the corporation because they are different legal entities with different rights and responsibilities.
- Concerns about overbreadth are addressed through RICO’s other elements, including the requirement of a “pattern of racketeering activity,” rather than by adding a stricter separateness rule.

## Conclusion

The Court held that RICO § 1962(c) applies when an individual corporate officer—even a sole shareholder—conducts the affairs of his corporation through a pattern of racketeering activity, because the individual and the corporation are legally distinct “person” and “enterprise.”


Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King, 533 U.S. 158 (2001)