## Facts

- Wilcox Development Co. and other borrowers and related individuals/entities (plaintiffs) filed four separate actions against First Interstate Bank of Oregon (FIOR) and related banking entities and another bank (defendants), which were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.
- Plaintiffs alleged the banks violated § 1 of the Sherman Act by agreeing to set their prime interest rates at an artificial, anticompetitive level.
- Plaintiffs did not present evidence of an express agreement to fix prime rates; instead, they relied on circumstantial proof.
- Plaintiffs’ circumstantial case focused on: (a) the similarity of prime rates among major banks and other lenders; (b) banks’ access to widely available information about prime-rate changes across the country; and (c) bank employees’ attendance at conventions and meetings that allegedly created opportunities to conspire.
- Trial testimony (including from witnesses presented by both sides) described the prime rate as a national rate heavily influenced by national economic conditions, and suggested that significant deviation from the national prime rate would be financially impracticable to sustain.
- FIOR offered evidence that it used an internal decision-making process for setting its prime rate that was not shared with other banks.
- A jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs.
- After the verdict, defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, for a new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence permitted a reasonable inference that defendants entered into a contract, combination, or conspiracy to fix prime interest rates in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act, rather than engaging in lawful parallel conduct.
2. Whether proof of similar prime rates, public information about pricing, and opportunities for contact (such as trade meetings) was enough to support liability under § 1 without evidence tending to exclude independent decision-making.
3. Whether plaintiffs’ RICO theories (including alleged mail and wire fraud tied to the interest-rate practices) established the required elements of a RICO claim, including a qualifying enterprise and a pattern of racketeering activity.

## Decision

- The court ruled for defendants on post-trial motions, concluding the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of an agreement to fix prime rates under Sherman Act § 1.
- The court determined that parallel movement in prime rates, in a market where pricing information is widely known and where banks respond to similar economic conditions, did not by itself permit an inference of unlawful agreement.
- The court also granted judgment for defendants on the RICO claims, finding plaintiffs had not shown the necessary RICO elements (including a proper enterprise theory and a pattern of racketeering acts tied to a fraudulent scheme).
- Disposition: defendants obtained judgment as a matter of law (or, in the alternative, entitlement to a new trial) on the federal claims addressed in the opinion.

## Legal Principles

- A Sherman Act § 1 claim requires proof of concerted action (a contract, combination, or conspiracy); parallel pricing alone does not establish an agreement.
- Circumstantial antitrust proof must include evidence that supports an inference of agreement and is not equally consistent with independent, lawful conduct in response to market conditions.
- In transparent markets with widely reported pricing, similar prices and coordinated timing may reflect rational, independent business judgment rather than collusion.
- Post-trial relief (judgment as a matter of law) is appropriate when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, would not allow a reasonable jury to find the required element (here, an agreement) without speculation.
- Civil RICO liability requires proof of statutory elements such as an enterprise and a pattern of racketeering activity; routine use of mail or wires in ordinary lending communications is not enough without proof of a predicate fraud scheme and qualifying racketeering pattern.
- A RICO enterprise theory must satisfy statutory requirements and cannot rest on conclusory labeling of ordinary corporate relationships without evidentiary support for the required structure and conduct.

## Conclusion

Wilcox Development Co. and other borrowers alleged that First Interstate and related banks fixed prime interest rates and engaged in RICO misconduct, relying mainly on parallel prime-rate behavior, public pricing information, and opportunities for interbank contact; the district court concluded the record did not support a reasonable inference of an unlawful agreement (or the required RICO elements) and entered judgment for the defendants notwithstanding the jury’s verdict (or, alternatively, granted a new trial).


Wilcox Development Co. v. First Interstate Bank of Oregon, 605 F. Supp. 592 (1985)