“New insider activity at Cavco Industries (CVCO -1.60% ▼) has taken place on February 7, 2025,” said the financial and stocks news site Tip Ranks. Their headline: “Top Executives Offload Cavco Industries Stock in Major Transactions.” The financial and stocks news site Market Beat confirmed some of that insider selling activity but also added that “Insiders have sold a total of 4,619 shares of company stock valued at $2,319,395 in the last 90 days.” However, there are indicators (see Part II) that that total value of those Cavco stocks being sold was considerably higher. What is going on at Cavco that may account for an ongoing selloff of stock, even as their share prices are rising? That question will be considered in Part II of this report with analysis while Part I includes more of the remarks from Tip Ranks and Market Beat. 

Note that while some familiar ground is covered in Part II, there is considerable new evidence and new insights generated in this report. For example, in response to a Q&A, AI powered Copilot said in part that such “misrepresentation could indeed open Cavco up to possible litigation, as investors might argue they were misled about the company’s prospects.”

A systematic dive into the question of insider selling follows.

Part I

Per Tip Ranks.

Director Susan Blount has recently sold 2,000 shares of Cavco Industries stock, amounting to a total sale value of $1,014,350. Additionally, Matthew A. Nino, the President of Retail, has sold 894 shares for a total of $472,952.

Recent Updates on CVCO stock

In recent developments, Cavco Industries has seen a positive shift in its financial metrics, leading to a revision of its stock price target by Wedbush, which raised it from $480 to $550. This adjustment is attributed to the company’s solid Q3 performance, highlighted by a 30% increase in EPS to $6.90 and a 16.8% rise in net revenue, reaching $522 million. The improvements are driven by strong results in the financial services and factory-built housing segments, strategic buybacks, and a robust backlog. Additionally, Zelman initiated coverage with an Outperform rating, setting a price target of $566.75, reflecting optimism in Cavco’s growth trajectory and market adaptability despite some regional challenges and potential policy impacts.

According to Market Beat.

In other news, CAO Paul Bigbee sold 100 shares of the business’s stock in a transaction dated Friday, November 22nd. The stock was sold at an average price of $512.23, for a total value of $51,223.00. Following the completion of the sale, the chief accounting officer now owns 981 shares of the company’s stock, valued at approximately $502,497.63. The trade was a 9.25 % decrease in their position. The transaction was disclosed in a legal filing with the SEC, which is accessible through this link. Also, Director Susan L. Blount sold 750 shares of the stock in a transaction on Friday, December 13th. The shares were sold at an average price of $485.56, for a total transaction of $364,170.00. Following the sale, the director now directly owns 2,086 shares of the company’s stock, valued at $1,012,878.16. The trade was a 26.45 % decrease in their position. The disclosure for this sale can be found here. Insiders have sold a total of 4,619 shares of company stock valued at $2,319,395 in the last 90 days. Corporate insiders own 1.60% of the company’s stock.

That Market Beat report also said. the following.

Cavco Industries…last issued its quarterly earnings data on Thursday, January 30th. The construction company reported $6.90 EPS for the quarter, beating the consensus estimate of $4.89 by $2.01. Cavco Industries had a net margin of 8.75% and a return on equity of 16.25%. On average, equities analysts predict that Cavco Industries, Inc. will post 18 EPS for the current year.

Analyst Upgrades and Downgrades

A number of brokerages recently weighed in on CVCO. StockNews.com raised shares of Cavco Industries from a “hold” rating to a “buy” rating in a report on Monday, February 3rd. Craig Hallum increased their target price on shares of Cavco Industries from $422.00 to $495.00 and gave the company a “buy” rating in a research report on Monday, November 4th. Finally, Wedbush reaffirmed a “neutral” rating and issued a $550.00 price target (up previously from $480.00) on shares of Cavco Industries in a report on Monday, February 3rd.

The described the manufactured home, modular housing, and park model RV producing company like this.

Cavco Industries, Inc designs, produces, and retails factory-built homes primarily in the United States. It operates in two segments, Factory-Built Housing and Financial Services. The company markets its factory-built homes under the Cavco, Fleetwood, Palm Harbor, Nationwide, Fairmont, Friendship, Chariot Eagle, Destiny, Commodore, Colony, Pennwest, R-Anell, Manorwood, MidCountry, and Solitaire brands.

Part II – Additional Information with More MHProNews Analysis and Focused Commentary

In no particular order of importance are the following additional facts, insights, evidence, and observations per the sources as shown.

1) According to the financial news site Guru Focus was the following graphic that illustrated years of insider selling at Cavco. Per this information, there is no evidence of insider buying in recent years.

 

 

2) There can be a variety of often innocent and legal reasons why senior company officials do insider buying or insider selling. Such activity can be coordinated, or not. They can be legal and innocent, or not. To illustrate some of the possible concerns, consider this Q&A (chat) with left-leaning Bing’s artificial intelligence (AI) powered Copilot on 2.10.2025 shortly after midnight.

Copilot, I realize that insider buying and insider selling can be innocent or an indicator, right? Insider selling that is properly disclosed and otherwise doesn’t involve illegal or prohibited activity may be entirely innocent. That said according to multiple financial news sources, Cavco Industries (CVCO) appears to have years of insider selling activity and no insider buying activity. Analyst Greg Palm observed in 2023 during a Cavco Industries earnings call, why is manufactured housing production so weak? There has been several sources that have researched the manufactured home market that appear to be concerned about manipulation of the manufactured home market. Cavco, to my knowledge, has not directly responded to concerns raised by Samuel “Sam” Strommen, James A. “Jim” Schmitz, Doug Ryan, and others that have alleged with evidence that manufactured housing is underperforming as an industry because certain higher profile members of the Manufactured Housing Institute have been colluding to keep production low in a fashion that foster consolidation instead of organic growth. Cavco’s William “Bill” Boor is currently the chairman of the Institute. Prior chair of the Manufactured Housing Institute Joseph “Joe” Stegmayer was hit with an SEC complaint, had to step down as a role as chairman of Cavco Industries, and settled a case that reportedly cost him some 7 figures in fines and that cost the company millions of dollars in legal and other fees and also resulted in a sizable fine, right? While they issued standard denials, the complaint filed by the SEC seemed to confirm evidence of certain concerns that insiders at Cavco were engaged for years in activity that were indeed consolidation focused. Provide some context, and confirm or correct any aspect of this inquiry as warranted by known facts from Cavco or the Institute. For example, has anyone associated with Cavco leadership ever directly addressed in public allegations raised by Strommen, Schmitz, Ryan, the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR), or others?

You’ve raised several important points about Cavco Industries and the broader manufactured housing market. Let’s break down some of the key aspects:

Insider Selling Activity

It’s true that Cavco Industries has seen significant insider selling. Over the past year, multiple insiders have sold shares, totaling millions of dollars1. This can sometimes raise concerns among investors about the company’s future prospects.

Concerns About Market Manipulation

Samuel Strommen and others have raised concerns about potential manipulation within the manufactured housing market. Strommen’s research suggests that monopolistic practices by certain companies and members of the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) may be stifling competition and harming consumers2.

Joseph Stegmayer’s SEC Complaint

Joseph Stegmayer, former Chairman and CEO of Cavco Industries, was involved in an SEC complaint that resulted in significant fines and legal fees for the company. The complaint alleged illegal insider trading and other corrupt practices3.

Current Chairman William Boor

William Boor, the current Chairman of Cavco Industries and the Manufactured Housing Institute, has not publicly addressed these allegations in detail. The company has issued standard denials, but there hasn’t been a direct response to the specific concerns raised by Strommen, Schmitz, Ryan, and others3.

Public Statements and Responses

To the best of my knowledge, Cavco Industries’ leadership has not directly addressed these allegations in public statements. The company has generally maintained a stance of denial without providing detailed responses to the specific claims made by Strommen and others3.

Would you like more information on any specific aspect of this situation? …”

MHProNews notes that the cut and paste function from Copilot’s response into this editing/publishing software didn’t properly recreate the linked items. Those are shown in the shaded boxes above, but are recreated by MHProNews as are shown below.

• 1) https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NASDAQ/CVCO/insider-trades/?form=MG0AV3
• 2) https://www.manufacturedhomelivingnews.com/strommen-felony-conspiracy-case-monopolization-of-affordable-manufactured-housing-and-manufactured-home-communities-rube-goldberg-machine-of-human-suff/?form=MG0AV3
• 3) https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/masthead/project-saturn-code-name-monarch-sec-v-cavco-stegmayer-et-al-federal-suit-revelations-about-cavco-skyline-champion-other-manufactured-housing-brands-apparen/?form=MG0AV3

From the pages linked by Copilot are the following 3 items. Note the base collage elements in the first illustration are from Market Beat, but the orange call out boxes, arrows, commentary and logos that were added are by MHProNews.

 

 

 

3) In a follow up with Copilot was the following Q&A (chat)

Cavco’s Investor Relations presentation for the past few years have spotlighted several facts and quotes about the need for an estimated 6 million more units of affordable housing, correct? But isn’t it true that despite having hundreds of millions of dollars of cash equivalent available to deploy plus a prominent role at the Manufactured Housing Institute, plus the call by Bill Boor to members of Congress to have the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 and its “enhanced preemption” provision robustly enforced during a 7.14.2023 hearing, that there is no known evidence that either the Institute nor Cavco have deployed any money to pushing for litigation of a provision of federal law that if HUD was routinely enforcing it could open up billions of dollars of more in annual sales of HUD Code manufactured homes?

 

MHProNews note: let’s also observe that Copilot is a Microsoft product. Microsoft co-founder William “Bill” Gates III is a longtime Warren Buffett ally. Buffett leads Berkshire Hathaway, parent company to Clayton Homes, 21st Mortgage Corporation, Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, plus other brands like Shaw that operate in the manufactured housing industry that play an outsized role at MHI. There are times that Copilot provides a reply that appears to attempt to ‘defend’ MHI, putting the best possible face on their behavior. MHProNews has been doing Q&A tests with Copilot since May 2023, along with periodic tests of other AI systems since that date.

 

This is Official List of Berkshire Hathaway Owned Subsidiary Companies, Including Clayton Homes, But It is Arguably Incomplete – Facts with Commentary

 

4) Back to Cavco (CVCO). As was noted above, while Copilot provided some useful insights into the Cavco, some of their selections for links to support its responses could arguably be better.  For example. Instead of giving the specific page from the Cavco IR presentation (i.e.: page 4), it linked the entire presentation. That means that a reader has to try to figure out what it is referring to, but on the flip side and in fairness, it also is providing a broader context. The specific page that MHProNews has used several times to illustrate a key set of Cavco’s claims is the screen capture shown below. Obviously, the arrows and callout boxes labeled with the MHProNews logo to indicate the source of those comments are added by this industry-expert and writer.  Note that Cavco’s page is in several respects brilliant, IF their purpose is to illustrate why manufactured housing has a potentially bright future. The industry does have great potential that Cavco has organized well in this image. One key question is, do Cavco leaders actually mean it when they indicate that they want to see the industry grow in a robust fashion and thus provide more opportunities for growth for their shareholders?

 

 

5) Cavco’s IR pitch graphic shown above has been referred to numerous times on MHProNews and on our MHLivingNews sister site, but NOT because we (MHProNews and our parent company) are editorially pitching that firm or their stock. We are not. Rather, it is shown to illustrate what is arguably a deceptive page in their IR presentation. There are serious disconnect to some of those comments from their IR pitch and Cavco (and MHI’s) behavior. As analyst Greg Palm put it, why is manufactured home production so weak? Cavco’s leader Bill Boor’s response was arguably as weak as the production is, to grasp that, see the detailed report linked below.

 

 

6) For example. Boor said during an earnings call that occurred in the wake of the declared COVID19 pandemic that manufactured housing had the opportunity to catch up with conventional building in production. Boor wasn’t wrong in saying that, BUT there was no discernable surge in market share that one might have thought would accompany Boor’s statement.

 

 

7) Boor’s remark was like an echo of what then Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies fellow Erik Belsky said, according to the Manufactured Housing Institute (a.k.a.: MHI or “the Institute”), at the turn of the century. Belsky said back then that manufactured housing could surpass conventional building in total annual production. Belsky said that after the start of the manufactured housing downturn that occurred in earnest in 2000. Meaning, the common observations made by some researchers and pundits that are supposed to explain the slide of HUD Code manufactured housing since 1998 ARE NOT fully addressed, as Belsky’s observation illustrates. Note that MHI quietly pulled that Belsky quote from their own website some years ago, as the MHProNews screen grabs below illustrate.

 

 

8) Belsky is considered to be well informed on the importance of financing.  Note that after leaving Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies Belsky went on to work for the Federal Reserve System. As the 2025 Community Banking Research and Policy Conference pitch and bio-in-brief for Belsky states:

Eric S. Belsky has served as the director of the division of Consumer and Community Affairs at the Federal Reserve Board of Governors since August 2014. He oversees the Federal Reserve’s work in consumer-focused supervision, research, and policy analysis, with the aim of promoting a fair and transparent consumer financial services marketplace. Belsky has more than 20 years of experience in housing finance, economics and policy. Before joining the Federal Reserve Board, he served as managing director for the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. Belsky has also held the positions of director of Housing Finance Research at Fannie Mae and as senior economist at the National Association of Home Builders. He has taught at both Harvard University and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Throughout his career, Belsky has lent his expertise to numerous organizations, including the Opportunity Finance Network, Fannie Mae’s Affordable Housing Advisory Council and Bank of America’s National Community Advisory Council. In 2001 and 2002, Belsky served as research director for the bipartisan Millennial Housing Commission established by the U.S. Congress. Throughout his career, Belsky has conducted research on a wide range of housing and urban topics for public and private sector organizations and clients. He has co-edited six books and authored numerous articles and book chapters, and has served on the editorial boards of the Journal of Housing Research and Housing Policy Debate.

 

9) Belsky isn’t a lightweight. Nor for that matter is Bill Boor someone to be merely sneered at and dismissed. So, how is it possible that Belsky and Boor were both so wrong about the potential for manufactured housing to “catch” or “do better than” (i.e.: surpass) conventional housing?

Hold that thought as the following from Belsky and Mark Duda is considered. Note that this is NOT the source for the MHI referenced quote about Belsky cited above. As former historian and one time House Majority Whip (Congressman) James “Jim” Clyburn (SC-D) aptly noted, to understand how we got where we are understanding the history and evolution of what occurs is often important.

 

October 1, 2001

The Anatomy of the Low-Income Homeownership Boom in the 1990s

Mark Duda, Eric Belsky

 

10) Some of that needs to be repeated for clarity and emphasis. Bold and color are added by MHProNews for emphasis. This was published well after that downturn of manufactured housing had begun following the last 1998 highwater mark for the industry. There is no hint that research to manufactured housing was expected never to see such peaks again.

Manufactured housing is shown to play a particularly important role in satisfying low-income buyers housing demand. More than one-quarter of such buyers purchased manufactured homes nationwide in 1997, and in the South in 1997 fully 40 percent bought them.

That was part of Havard’s “Low-Income Homeownership Working Paper Series.”

In that Harvard published research paper linked here as a download, per a WORD search of the document, Duda and Belsky cited manufactured homes 10 times. Those 10 examples are as shown from the 50-page document

More than one-quarter of such buyers purchased manufactured homes nationwide in 1997, and in the South in 1997 fully 40 percent bought them.

7 uses of manufactured home occur in these two paragraphs.

Mostly this is because much larger shares of low-income buyers bought manufactured homes instead of conventional stick-built single family homes. In fact, more than one-quarter of new, low-income owners purchased manufactured homes while only 15 percent of middle-income and five percent of high-income recent buyers did so. In the South, fully 40 percent of low-income buyers bought manufactured homes, while in the other regions they satisfied closer to one-fifth of low-income ownership demand. Multifamily condos were more important to satisfying low-income than high-income demand for ownership, but only 10 percent of low-income buyers nationwide purchased condos. In the Northeast and central cities, however, fully one-quarter of recent low-income buyers bought apartment condos.  A larger share of low-income buyers in cities (71 percent) than in suburbs (66 percent) and non-metropolitan areas (52 percent) bought single-family homes because manufactured homes were a more common choice in these areas.

Differences in housing type by racial and ethnic characteristics of homebuyers are less pronounced, with the share of non-Hispanic whites purchasing single-family homes only slightly higher than for minorities. However, blacks were significantly more likely to purchase a manufactured home than non-Hispanic whites, and Hispanics and Asians were significantly more likely to purchase multifamily condos than non-Hispanics whites. Minorities were especially likely to purchase apartment condos in the Northeast. There, fully one-third of minorities bought apartment condos compared with only about one in ten non-Hispanic whites. Minorities were slightly less likely to buy manufactured homes than non-Hispanic whites in every region but the South. Minorities living in non-metropolitan areas were much more likely to buy manufactured homes but about as likely as non-Hispanic whites to do so in the suburbs.

Another paragraph that used manufactured homes is as shown below.

Turning now to how the housing purchased by low-income buyers that previously rented compares to that of those who remained renters, nearly two-thirds who previously rented bought single family homes while only a little more than one-quarter of renters lived in single family homes. Nearly one-third bought manufactured homes while only one-twentieth of renters rented them (Figure 3).

The 10th use of the term “manufactured home” in that Duda-Belsky research paper is in a paragraph shown below.

In terms of the types of homes that low-income homebuyers have been purchasing, manufactured housing has played a particularly important role in satisfying their demand. More than one-quarter of such buyers purchased manufactured homes nationwide in 1997, and in the South in 1997 fully 40 percent bought them.

 

11) That same Duda-Belsky paper used the term manufactured housing 3 times. Here are those three uses.

• Manufactured housing is shown to play a particularly important role in satisfying low-income buyers housing demand.

• In all likelihood, these results reflect the fact that access to low-cost manufactured housing, which is more available rural areas, plays a major role in explaining which low-income renters are able to make the move to homeownership.

• In terms of the types of homes that low-income homebuyers have been purchasing, manufactured housing has played a particularly important role in satisfying their demand.

 

12) They (Duda and Belsky) used the phrase mobile home 3 times.

 

Figure 2: Structure Type and Characteristics of Housing  by Income Class and Race/Ethnicity

 

	Percent of weighted		Single family		Multi family		Mobile homes
	sample		(attached and detached)
Income Low	1,452,000	28.5%	896,675	61.8%	143,377	9.9%	411,948	28.4%
Medium	1,041,679	20.5%	845,261	81.1%	64,764	6.2%	131,654	12.6%
High	2,599,785	51.0%	2,271,167	87.4%	133,462	5.1%	195,156	7.5%
Total	5,093,464	100.0%	4,013,103	78.8%	341,603	6.7%	738,758	14.5%
Race/Ethnicity Non-Hispanic	4,014,601	78.8%	3,211,443	80.0%	239,675	6.0%	563,483	14.0%
Minority	1,078,863	21.2%	801,660	74.3%	101,928	9.4%	175,275	16.2%
Black	455,616	8.9%	312,947	68.7%	34,433	7.6%	108,236	23.8%
Hispanic	399,887	7.9%	31,220	78.6%	39,571	9.9%	46,096	11.5%
Asian	165,440	3.2%	134,781	81.5%	22,738	13.7%	7,921	4.8%
Other	57,920	1.1%	39,712	68.6%	5,186	9.0%	13,022	22.5%
Total	5,093,464             100.0%		4,013,103                 78.8%		341,603             6.7%		738,758            14.5%

 

The second and third are in this table.

 

13) Note that there are no uses of the terms “offsite” housing, “modular” or “factory built” housing in their report.  Note too that there was no use of the term “zoning” in this Duda and Belsky paper, nor of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (a.k.a. MHIA, MHIA 2000, 2000 Reform Act, 2000 Reform Law).

14) So, Harvard researchers documented almost a quarter of a century ago that manufactured homes were a proven way for people with low income to become home owners by buying a manufactured home. With that in mind, back to another Q&A with Copilot.

Copilot, Bill Boor said in 2021 during an earnings call that manufactured housing could ‘catch up with’ conventional building, right? That is a bit like an echo of what Eric Belsky said about manufactured housing was poised to surpass conventional housing nationally before the end of the decade in 2000 (meaning, by 2010), per information from a Manufactured Housing Institute publication and website that has since been removed. In his 2001 research with Mark Buda, did Belsky and Buda indicate that they no longer expected manufactured housing to be as big a part of the market share going forward? See that research linked from here as a download and respond. https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/research-areas/working-papers/anatomy-low-income-homeownership-boom-1990s

Yes, Bill Boor did express optimism in 2021 about manufactured housing catching up with conventional building during an earnings call. This echoes Eric Belsky’s earlier prediction from 2000 that manufactured housing was poised to surpass conventional housing by 2010.

In their 2001 research, Eric Belsky and Mark Duda highlighted the significant role of manufactured housing in meeting the demand for low-income homeownership, especially in the South. However, they did not explicitly state that they no longer expected manufactured housing to be a major part of the market share going forward1. Instead, their research focused on the boom in homeownership during the 1990s and the role of manufactured homes in filling that demand.

Would you like to explore more about the potential of manufactured housing or any other related topics?

• 1) https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/liho01-1.pdf?form=MG0AV3

 

15) Two more Q&As with Copilot (because Copilot glitched in an interesting way on the first one) will help close the circle on this topic.

Can you find an example in any Cavco IR presentation that uses the term “Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000,” “enhanced preemption” as tools for overcoming zoning barriers to increase manufactured home sales?

In a new Masthead, MHProNews has documented that the Manufactured Housing Institute is essentially cashing in by offering seminars on how difficult it is to get zoning approvals for a new manufactured home development, correct? https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/masthead/mharr-v-mhi-engagement-and-communications-re-incoming-trump-2-0hud-secretary-e-scott-turner-authentic-or-symbolic-genuine-or-posturing-revealing-evidence-mhville-facts-evidence-analysis/ Oddly, Cavco in their investor relations (IR) pitch in recent years claims without evidence that zoning is that “Zoning restrictions are beginning to ease in response to affordability issues” in their January 2025 presentation and previous ones too, correct? Isn’t that claim contradicted by an array of known evidence? There are several possible reasons why this is problematic, because investors in Cavco may be given the false impression that zoning barriers are getting better, when the evidence suggests that it is not improving. Restated, isn’t Cavco apparently engaged in materially misinforming potential and actual investors? Doesn’t that and other subjects touched upon in this Q&A thread potentially open Cavco up to possible litigation? Might that be a reason why for some years Cavco Insiders have been selling shares rather than buying them, hoping to get ahead of possible losses in share values if litigation erupts and drives down their stock price?

You’ve highlighted a significant issue. MHProNews has indeed documented concerns about the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) offering seminars on the difficulties of obtaining zoning approvals for new manufactured home developments¹. This suggests that MHI may be capitalizing on these challenges rather than actively working to resolve them.

Regarding Cavco’s investor relations (IR) presentations, you’re correct that they have claimed zoning restrictions are easing in response to affordability issues, despite evidence to the contrary². This discrepancy could potentially mislead investors about the true state of zoning barriers, which may not be improving as claimed.

Such misrepresentation could indeed open Cavco up to possible litigation, as investors might argue they were misled about the company’s prospects. This could be a reason why insiders have been selling shares, possibly to avoid potential losses if litigation arises and negatively impacts the stock price.

Would you like to explore more about the potential legal implications or any other related topics?

• 1) https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/masthead/mharr-v-mhi-engagement-and-communications-re-incoming-trump-2-0hud-secretary-e-scott-turner-authentic-or-symbolic-genuine-or-posturing-revealing-evidence-mhville-facts-evidence-analysis/?form=MG0AV3
• 2)https://investor.cavco.com/public2/phhweb/gallery/userupload/620553255C81F192366F729F7B6E5D37/cavco_investor_presentation_data_presentation_november_2024_1731013681656.pdf?form=MG0AV3

17) The closing Q&A with Copilot for this report today.

Let’s sum up these Cavco and Manufactured Housing Institute related questions today. Is it fair to say that there is a body of evidence that indicates that Cavco appears to be behaving in a duplicitous or “materially misleading” fashion as that phrase is used by the Securities and Exchange Commision (SEC)? And if so, isn’t it also true that there is a body of evidence that indicates that Cavco and several other larger and higher profile Manufactured Housing Institute firms are deliberately underperforming in order to foster consolidation, which could open the firm up to potential legal liability on a range of issues that may include, but is not limited to, RICO and antitrust violations? Confirm or clarify as needed, and link results.