Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, RICO—S.D.N.Y.: Law firms dismissed from case over energy contract in Senegal, (Oct 10, 2025)

By Brian Craig, J.D.

While the complaint alleged a multitude of criminal violations, none of the allegations were sufficiently pleaded to support a RICO claim and cooperation agreement released the law firm from liability.

The federal district court in New York City has dismissed racketeering and fraud charges brought by an energy company against two large law firms, Dentons US LLP and Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, over a failed plan to improve power in Senegal. In dismissing the case with prejudice, the court concluded that none of the allegations are sufficiently pleaded to support a RICO claim against the law firms and a cooperation agreement released the law firm from liability. The court also held that allegations of obstruction of justice, perjury, and witness tampering that occurred in the International Court of Arbitration are insufficient to support a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act violation because the alleged misconduct did not relate to a domestic court (Corsini v. Dentons US LLP, No. 1:24-cv-03196-LTS (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2025)).

An energy company, Liberty-Citic Energy Cayman Ltd., and Liberty, Eco Energy LLC (collectively, “Liberty”), retained the law firm Dentons US LLP (“Dentons”), described as the world’s largest global law firm, in connection plan to improve the delivery and distribution of power in Senegal. The principal transaction document was a power purchase agreement negotiated between the energy company and the Société Nationale D’Eléctricité du Sénégal (“SENELEC”), which was the state-owned power supply company for Senegal. While SENELEC executed the power purchase agreement, the Board of Directors of SENELEC never approved the agreement. The Dentons law firm terminated its representation of Liberty for failure to pay approximately $1.9 million in legal fees. Several years later, in Liberty retained another law firm, Boies Schiller, to commence arbitration proceedings against SENELEC and Senegal in an attempt to enforce the power purchase agreement. In 2016, Liberty and Dentons then entered into a cooperation agreement. Arbitration proceedings took place before the International Court of Arbitration. The International Court of Arbitration concluded that the purported power purchase agreement is not a binding contract and that Liberty owed approximately $1.2 million for the costs with arbitration. Liberty then filed a lawsuit against the two law firms, Dentons and Boies Schiller, alleging RICO violations as well as New York state claims for fraud, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment. The law firms moved to dismiss the complaint.

RICO claims. The court concluded that none of the allegations are sufficiently pleaded to support a RICO claim against the law firms. The court concluded that the cooperation agreement signed in 2016 between the energy company and Dentons released the law firm from any disputes and claims relating to the power purchase agreement. The energy company is barred from bringing claims against Dentons for actions pre-dating the cooperation agreement.

The court also held that allegations of obstruction of justice, perjury, and witness tampering that occurred in the International Court of Arbitration are insufficient to support a RICO violation. The alleged misconduct International Court of Arbitration did not relate to a domestic court. Obstruction of justice under federal law requires that the conduct takes place before a federal court. Because the allegations took place before the International Court of Arbitration, the court dismissed the RICO claims based on the arbitration proceedings.

Other claims. In addition, the court concluded that none of the other claims are sufficiently plead. The court found that claims for mail fraud, extortion, common law fraud, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment all fail. And the claim for violation of New York Judiciary law section 487 does not apply to conduct outside New York’s territorial borders.

Dismissal with prejudice. Finally, the court granted dismissal with prejudice and did not permit the energy complaint to amend the complaint. The energy company’s response to the motion to dismiss consisted of nothing more than conclusory recitations of the most basic elements of each claim.

The Case is No. 1:24-cv-03196-LTS.

Judge: Swain, L.

Attorneys: Paul Amandio Batista (Paul A. Batista, PC) for Frank Corsini. Howard Ian Elman (Elman Freiberg PLLC) for Dentons US LLP.

Companies: Dentons US LLP

Cases: RICO NewYorkNews