Opinion ID: 187362
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: bwh

Text: BWH makes an argument similar to that of Altria. In 2004, Brown & Williamson merged all domestic tobacco operations with Reynolds and was reconstituted into Brown & Williamson Holdings (BWH). The district court made no factual findings specific to BWH. Rather, the district court focused throughout its opinion on Brown & Williamson. Philip Morris, 449 F.Supp.2d at 31 n. 4 (describing Brown & Williamson as now part of Reynolds American). The entire rest of the opinion refers to Brown & Williamson without any mention of the reconstituted holding company. Based on BWH's status as a passive holding company, BWH argues the district court erred in finding it is likely to commit future RICO violations. As discussed in relation to Altria, a company's status as a holding company by itself does not preclude RICO liability. Where a holding company, such as Altria, participates directly in the original violations and retains control over subsidiary tobacco operations, it remains capable of repeating its misconduct. BWH could not have participated in this RICO enterprise as it did not then exist. Nonetheless, if it exercises plenary control over the tobacco operations of its subsidiaries, then, like Altria, it could commit later violations. Because the district court failed to make any findings about the extent of BWH's control over tobacco operations, we cannot know the company's current capabilities. Therefore, we cannot determine whether a reasonable likelihood exists that BWH will commit future RICO violations. Accordingly, we remand this issue for further fact finding and clarification.