Court won't hear restitution claim in Ponzi case

Recent Cases

The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from investment funds seeking repayment of their losses in a $3.7 billion Ponzi scheme operated by Minnesota businessman Thomas Petters.

The funds together lost $165 million and challenged a federal judge's order denying restitution to any of Petters' victims. Among other things, the court said the victims would have other ways of recouping some of their money.

The justices on Monday refused to disturb the ruling.

A federal law generally requires a court to order restitution as part of a defendant's sentence, but allows for some exceptions. The judge in this case said that restitution would be too complex, take too long and result in the payment of less than a penny for each dollar victims lost.



Related listings

  • Court orders reconsideration of parole judgment

    Court orders reconsideration of parole judgment

    Recent Cases 06/13/2011

    The Supreme Court has ordered a lower court to reconsider its decision to release a criminal on parole. The high court threw out a lower court decision ordering John Pirtle and other prisoners released from prison on parole. Pirtle was convicted of k...

  • NY jury convicts 3 in NYC hedge fund trial

    NY jury convicts 3 in NYC hedge fund trial

    Recent Cases 06/12/2011

    The second trial to result from a massive investigation into insider trading at hedge funds ended Monday with the conviction of a trio of Wall Street traders on charges they paid hefty bribes to coax confidential information out of shady lawyers. A j...

  • Toyota class action suit to start with Utah case

    Toyota class action suit to start with Utah case

    Recent Cases 06/11/2011

    The first lawsuit to go to trial in a massive class action against Toyota Motor Corp. over acceleration problems that led the company to recall 14 million cars will involve a crash that killed two people in western Utah, a federal judge said Friday. ...

What Is Meant by ‘No-Fault’ Workers’ Compensation in Illinois?

If you were injured in a work-related accident and have been researching workers’ compensation, you may have seen it described as a “no-fault” system. One of the most important things to understand about the workers’ compensation system in Illinois is that it is based on a “no-fault” system. What does this mean, exactly?

Most employers in Illinois are required by law to have workers’ compensation insurance. And the workers' compensation in Illinois is a “no-fault” system, which means that any worker who has been hurt on the job is entitled to workers' compensation benefits. If you have been hurt on the job, you are entitled to workers’ compensation benefits no matter whose fault the accident was.

A no-fault insurance system, such as workers’ comp, works by paying claims regardless of who is to blame for an accident. This provides an important layer of protection for injured workers, sparing them from having to through additional litigation and the through the additional burden of proving who was at fault before receiving benefits.

In Illinois, even though you don’t have to prove that your injury was your employer’s fault, you do have to prove that your injury happened at work or as a result of work. If you would like help to file your workers' compensation claim, Krol, Bongiorno, & Given’s experienced workers' comp lawyers are here to help. With over 60 years of combined legal experience, the KBG law firm is a leader in the field of workers’ compensation law and we have earned the reputation as aggressive advocates for injured workers before the IWCC.

Business News

Surry County Criminal Defense Lawyers. At DiRusso & DiRusso, we have the legal knowledge and experience to protect you. >> read
Canton, MI Criminal Law Attorney Rita White is a metro Detroit area attorney with a focus on criminal defense. >> read