Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On May 29, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lagos v. United States, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), that corporate victims of criminal offenses cannot recover expenses incurred from internal investigations that the federal government has neither requested nor required under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. §3663A (MVRA). In its decision, the Court declined to address whether, going forward, such victims can recover costs from internal investigations initiated at the government's behest under the statute. Prior to this holding, a number of federal courts held that corporate victims were eligible for restitution for the costs incurred from their internal investigations and referrals to law enforcement — regardless of whether the government requested or required such investigations. These courts ordered restitution to reflect these costs on grounds that internal investigations: 1) are a foreseeable result of the crimes enumerated in the MVRA; and 2) provide invaluable assistance to government investigations and proceedings.
However, the Court's unanimous decision in Lagos effectively overruled these decisions and poses a setback for companies victimized by criminal conduct in determining what steps to take in reaction to the disclosure of the conduct. The companies likely have no choice but to conduct exhaustive internal investigations to identify the scope of the crime and to receive cooperation credit pursuant to the recently-updated Department of Justice Manual. See, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual §9-28.000, Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations. In doing so, they should be aware of the real possibility that they cannot recover the costs incurred from these investigations through restitution and may have to pursue the funds solely through civil litigation. Should companies elect to minimize costs by declining to investigate internally — or by conducting a small-scale investigation — they risk the full extent of the crime remaining undetected and forego the ability to earn cooperation credit with the government. Moreover, public companies face the added dilemma of having to explain to their shareholders what steps they took to investigate the conduct and prevent future incidents, while also being mindful of the fiscal consequences of full-scale investigative work that might not be reimbursed.
Restitution is intended to restore a victim, to the extent possible, to "the position he occupied before sustaining injury." United States v. Boccagna, 450 F.3d 107, 115 (2d Cir. 2006). When a restitution statute applies, the government bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the amount of loss that a victim sustained. However, a restitution award "need only to be a reasonable estimate of the victim's actual losses" and courts must resolve uncertainties in favor of the victim. See, United States. v. Donaghy, 570 F. Supp. 2d 411, 423 (E.D.N.Y. 2008).
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.