In Re Fisher, 649 F.3d 401

Fisher and Odyssey Residential Holdings sought restitution under the Crime Victims' Rights Act for about $1.893 million spent on two projects competing with conspirators' projects.
Slovacek and others were convicted of conspiring to bribe Dallas city government officials to obtain approval for affordable-housing projects.
The district court held Fisher was not a 'crime victim' because his losses were not a but-for result of the federal offense.
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit previously denied mandamus relief without a sentencing transcript; the transcript later showed Fisher’s losses were not caused by the conspiracy itself but by its concealment as one part of the scheme.
Fisher argued the conspiracy’s concealment was a but-for cause of his investments, and also argued that he lost a level playing field for bidding.
The court ultimately denied reconsideration, reaffirming that Fisher failed to prove direct and proximate harm or a lost opportunity on a level playing field.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Slovacek's crime a but-for cause of Fisher's losses?	Fisher asserts the conspiracy's concealment caused his $1.9M expenditures.	Conspiracy itself, not concealment, caused harm; without conspiracy at all, expenditures would still occur.	No; the conspiracy was not a but-for cause of Fisher's losses.
Did Fisher suffer a loss of opportunity to bid on a level playing field	Loss of fair bidding rights is actionable harm under CVRA.	Record shows speculative; no proven lost opportunity to obtain approval if bidding had been fair.	Not proven; insufficient evidence of a harmed opportunity to compete.
Should the mandamus proceeding be consolidated with Fisher's direct appeal	CVRA rights extend to rehearing and reconsideration; consolidation is appropriate.	CVRA does not clearly grant a right to a direct appeal in this context.	Denied; no consolidation.

United States v. Washington, 434 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2006) (bystander's injuries as but-for consequence of flight from crime)
United States v. Donaby, 349 F.3d 1046 (7th Cir. 2003) (but-for causation in injury from crime context)
United States v. Gutierrez-Avascal, 542 F.3d 495 (5th Cir. 2008) (but-for causation framework in CVRA context)
United States v. Hackett, 311 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2002) (by-product of crime as but-for injury)
Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co. v. Bridge, 477 F.3d 928 (7th Cir. 2007) (injury from loss of bid in tainted process specific to bidding)
Bulletin Displays, LLC v. Regency Outdoor Adv., Inc., 518 F. Supp. 2d 1182 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (injury theory based on failure to win contract in tainted process)
Astech-Marmon, Inc. v. Lenoci, 349 F. Supp. 2d 265 (D. Conn. 2004) (lost contract as injury under RICO context)
Moser v. Tex. Trailer Corp., 623 F.2d 1006 (5th Cir. 1980) (but-for causation test within tort context)