## Facts

- Arctic Glacier International, Inc. acquired Party Time Ice, where Martin McNulty was an executive.
- After the acquisition, Arctic managers directed McNulty to participate in an unlawful customer-allocation agreement in the packaged-ice market in southeastern Michigan and Detroit.
- McNulty refused to participate and was terminated.
- McNulty assisted federal authorities in their antitrust investigation of Arctic.
- Arctic pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to allocate packaged-ice customers in the relevant market, affecting tens of millions of dollars in sales.
- McNulty claimed that his refusal to join the conspiracy led to termination and subsequent blackballing in the packaged-ice industry, preventing comparable employment.
- In the criminal case, McNulty sought recognition as a “crime victim” under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, and sought restitution for employment-related losses.
- The district court denied victim status and restitution, concluding that the offense’s victims were Arctic’s customers and that McNulty was not directly and proximately harmed by the conspiracy.
- McNulty petitioned the Sixth Circuit for a writ of mandamus under the CVRA to overturn the denial.

## Issues

1. Whether McNulty qualified as a “crime victim” under the CVRA as a person “directly and proximately harmed” by Arctic’s customer-allocation conspiracy.
2. Whether mandamus relief under the CVRA was warranted to compel the district court to recognize McNulty as a victim and allow restitution in the criminal proceeding.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit denied the petition for a writ of mandamus.
- The court held that McNulty was not a CVRA “crime victim” because his alleged losses were not directly and proximately caused by the federal offense of conviction.
- The court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying victim status and restitution.

## Legal Principles

- Under the CVRA, a “crime victim” is “a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(e).
- The “direct and proximate” requirement ties victim status to harm flowing from the specific offense of conviction, not from collateral or retaliatory conduct associated with the broader factual setting.
- In a customer-allocation antitrust conspiracy, the direct victims are customers whose competitive choices are restrained and who may pay supracompetitive prices; employment consequences to an executive who refused participation are not the market harms targeted by the offense.
- Restitution-focused precedents under related statutes (VWPA/MVRA) may inform CVRA interpretation, but CVRA text controls and still requires a close causal connection between the offense and the claimed loss.
- CVRA mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and is not granted where the district court’s application of the statutory victim definition is reasonable and not clearly erroneous.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that an executive terminated for refusing to join a customer-allocation conspiracy was not “directly and proximately harmed” by the antitrust offense itself and therefore lacked CVRA victim status; mandamus relief to obtain restitution in the criminal case was denied.


In re McNulty, 597 F.3d 344 (6th Cir. 2010)