In Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff Associates, Inc., 483 U.S. 143, 107 S.Ct. 2759, 2763-64, 97 L.Ed.2d 121 (1987), the Supreme Court found that federal antitrust statutes provided a closer analogy to a RICO claim than any state law alternative. 483 U.S. at 155, 107 S.Ct. at 2766. It first determined that RICO claims have a multistate nature since they often involve an interstate transaction, and indeed must have some nexus to interstate or foreign commerce, and the predicate acts could take place in several states. Id. The Court contrasted this to 1983 claims that require no interstate nexus and tend to take place in one state. Id. at 155, 107 S.Ct. at 2766. The Court next considered the similarities in purpose and structure between the two federal statutes2, the Congressional intent to pattern the RICO statute after the antitrust statute, the uniqueness of the concepts involved in a RICO claim, the federal policies at stake and the multistate nature of the claims. Id. at 150-55, 107 S.Ct. at 2764-67In Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Assoc., Inc., the Court considered whether a uniform period is desirable, id. at 148-49, and whether a federal statute provided a "far closer analogy ... than any state law alternative", paying particular attention to the "similarities in purpose and structure" between the two federal statutes. Id. at 150, 152. It also focused on litigation practicalities, particularly the potential for forum shopping generated by application of diverse state periods. Id. at 153-54.