Task: Text Completion
Input (English): 811 A.2d 10, 14 (Pa.Super.Ct.2002). 10 . Because the Court concludes that the Franchisees have stated a claim for breach of the covenant of good faith within the bounds established by Razumic and Witmer, the Court need not consider the parties' arguments about whether the duty of good faith might extend beyond termination to other aspects of the franchise relationship. 11 . It is undisputed that the defendants are ''persons” that may be held liable under RICO. See 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3) (defining "person” as "any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property”). 12 . Indeed, because the corporate defendants are both "persons” and "enterprises,” it is not clear whether they could be held liable under § 1962(b). See Lightning Lube, Inc., 4 F.3d at 1190 (<HOLDING>). The Court of Appeals has held that the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that to prevail under civil rico plaintiff must prove that defendants participated in the conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity (B) holding that a pattern of racketeering activity required multiple illegal schemes (C) holding that instructions allowing a jury to find an enterprise from evidence of its activity as opposed to its structure properly conveyed the holding in turkette that proof of a pattern of racketeering activity may be sufficient in a particular case to permit a jury to infer the existence of an associationinfact enterprise (D) holding that to state a  1962a claim plaintiff must allege that the defendants received income derived from a pattern of racketeering activity and invested it in the acquisition of any interest in or the establishment or operation of a rico enterprise (E) recognizing that it is difficult to understand how a corporation can acquire or maintain an interest in itself through a pattern of racketeering activity and that 1962b may require that the person and enterprise be distinct entities
Output (English): (E)