Opinion ID: 790408
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Huff's Mandamus Petition

Text: 19 The Huff Petitioners argue that mandamus relief is warranted because the Settlement Agreement violates the CVRA—specifically §§ 3771(a)(6) and (8)—in that it subjects them to a Hobson's choice of either foregoing compensation from the approximately $715 million in Victim Fund proceeds or accepting a distribution (under an as-yet unknown plan of allocation) under unreasonable constraints that unnecessarily jeopardize the viability of their civil claims against other participants in the Adelphia fraud. See Huff. Mot. at 15. According to the Huff Petitioners, the settlement violates the victims' rights under the CVRA to be treated fairly and to be provided with full and timely restitution. See id. 20 The Huff Petitioners further contend that paragraph 8 of the Settlement Agreement is unfair under the CVRA because the Settlement Agreement violates the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, by making it virtually impossible for victims to obtain anything close to full recovery for their losses. See id. at 18. They argue that the Settlement Agreement places victims in a worse position than they would be in had the Court ordered the Rigas Defendants to pay restitution under the MVRA. Id. at 23. 21