55 West Monroe Street
Chicago, Illinois 60603
© 2013 - 2015 Funkhouser Vegosen Liebman & Dunn LTD. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions.
Not loads of lawyers, just really great ones.
Williams Electronics Games, Inc. v. Garrity, et al., 366 F.3d 569 (7th Cir. 2004) The Firm frequently conducts confidential investigations for corporate clients on subjects ranging from suspected criminal conduct and fraud to employee harassment. In this case, the Firm’s lawyers were called in by one of its manufacturing clients to investigate a suspected purchasing impropriety. A forensic investigation ultimately accumulated evidence sufficient to obtain the confession of a former purchasing manager and various vendors, including that of the Chicago account executive of Arrow Electronics, one of the worlds’ largest electronics distributors, that they had victimized the client for years with a series of commercial bribery schemes. The Firm’s recovery efforts obtained millions of dollars for its client. The former purchasing manager pleaded guilty to a criminal indictment, as did a New York electronics broker that had sued the client in federal court for unpaid invoices. Two vendors, Arrow and Milgray Electronics, refused to make restitution, however, arguing that the client had ratified the corrupt sales or was equally at fault because it should have discovered the bribes earlier. They also argued that the most the client could recover was any unreasonable profit attributable to the bribery. In an extremely important ruling for victims of commercial bribery, the Seventh Circuit rejected these purported defenses as a matter of law. Moreover, it held that a victim is not limited to its actual loss and that intentional tortfeasors must make restitution of their total profits on the tainted sales. The Seventh Circuit decision was reported in the Chicago Law Bulletin as “Verdict against Game Maker Reversed” and "Restitution Represents Important Alternative.”