what constitutes management of an enterprise for purposes of § 1962(c)." Reves, 113 S. Ct. at 1173. Even though the accounting professional standards specifically state that financial statements are management's responsibility, the Court held that an accountant's preparation of financial and audit reports did not give rise to liability under § 1962(c). Id.; see also Sassoon v. Altgeld, 777, Inc., 822 F. Supp. 1303, 1993 WL 155504, *4 (N.D. Ill. 1993) Thus, what weight the professional standards can be given, if any, remains dubious. In this case, while the guidelines put out by the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers stress the importance of the appraisers' job, they do not compel us to find that a real estate appraiser necessarily engages in the operation or management of a lending institution. See Ex. E attached to Plaintiffs' Response.
Section 1962(d) provides that it is unlawful for any person to conspire to violate sections (a), (b) or (c) of the RICO statute. Meridian Mortgage Corporation v. Spivak, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7452, 1993 WL 193364 (E.D. Pa. 1993). Although, we find that plaintiffs have not established that the Iatarola defendants can be held liable under § 1962(c), dismissal of plaintiffs' § 1962(d) claim is not automatic. Rose v. Bartle, 871 F.2d 331, 366 (3d Cir. 1989); contra Steco, Inc. v. S & T Manufacturing, Inc., 772 F. Supp. 1495, 1503 (E.D. Pa. 1991). The nature of a conspiracy claim does not require that the underlying substantive offenses actually be committed. Jones v. Meridian Towers Apartments, Inc., 816 F. Supp. 762, 773 (D.D.C. 1993). Rather, liability under § 1962(d) turns not on whether a defendant personally commits the predicate acts, but rather that the defendant agrees only to the commission of the predicate acts. United States v. Adams, 759 F.2d 1099, 1116 (3d Cir. 1985). Because the Iatarola defendants have not moved for dismissal of the conspiracy charge, recitation of the requisite elements of the claim, see Rose v. Bartle, 871 F.2d at 366, at this juncture is not essential other than to state that dismissal of the 1962(c) claim does not automatically trigger dismissal of the 1962(d) claim. United States v. Pryba, 900 F.2d 748, 760 (4th Cir. 1990) (RICO conspirators need not be involved in the affairs of the conspiracy to a greater extent than required by other conspiracies).
C. Aiding and Abetting
The Iatarola defendants urge the Court to dismiss plaintiffs allegation of aider and abettor liability on the ground that the Reves decision implicitly and explicitly makes aider and abettor liability inconsistent with § 1962(c) liability and the "operation or managment test." In Petro-Tech, Inc. v. Western Co. of North America, 824 F.2d 1349 (3d Cir. 1987), the Third Circuit affirmatively concluded that civil RICO liability for aiding and abetting advanced the goals of RICO and therefore an aider and abettor of two predicate acts can be civilly liable under RICO. Id. at 1357-58. While we recognize that a common law doctrine may be engrafted onto a federal statute only where the common law principles advance the goals of the particular statute, id. at 1356, we conclude that the Reves decision does not alter the nature of RICO to such an extent as to warrant the implicit reversal of the Petro-Tech holding. Furthermore, we find that the portion of the Reves opinion which the Iatarola defendants contend explicitly overrules Petro-Tech does not stand for that proposition. The portion of the Supreme Court's opinion to which defendants refer is limited to the Court's attempt to define the word "participate" as it is used in the RICO statute and is not dispositive of the argument advanced by the Iatarola defendants. Accordingly, we are bound to adhere to the Third Circuit's Petro-Tech decision.
An appropriate order follows.
AND NOW, this day of June, 1993 upon consideration of the Motion of Iatarola Defendants for Judgment on the Pleadings and/or Summary Judgment and Plaintiffs' response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED in Part and DENIED in Part:
1. Iatarola Defendants' Motion is GRANTED with respect to the 28 U.S.C. § 1962(c) claim.
2. Iatarola Defendants' Motion is DENIED with respect to the 28 U.S.C. § 1962 (d) and aiding and abetting claims.
BY THE COURT:
J. Curtis Joyner, J.