False Claims Act Qui Tam Complaint — United States ex rel. Daniel Foster v. TCC International LLC (Dkt. 7)

Summary

False Claims Act Qui Tam Complaint in United States of America ex rel. Daniel Foster v. TCC International LLC d/b/a CORE: Club; CORE Club Members Corp; and CORE: Gravity LLC, Case 1:23-cv-10084-MKV, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed 08/20/25 as Document 7, marked under seal. Relator Daniel Foster brings the action on behalf of the United States under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 et seq., and alleges, upon information and belief, that beginning in April 2020 the Defendants applied for and received forgiveness of two PPP loans and applied for a Restaurant Revitalization Fund grant for which, as an invitation-only private members club, they were ineligible. It alleges that three different names and entities were used for the applications and that the illegal conduct continued until on or about March 11, 2023.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“False Claims Act Qui Tam Complaint — United States ex rel. Daniel Foster v. TCC International LLC (Dkt. 7).” Original at archive.org. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-no-1-23-cv-10084-dkt-7-s-d-n-y-791844420d/, SHA-256 e03fa7bdd751e74d9b9975468b86a6538dcf6508bbb28e935bb438c88609c7a3.

Full text

Case 1:23-cv-10084-MKV Document 7 Filed 08/20/25 Page 1 of 22

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No.
ev rel. DANIEL FOSTER ,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiff- Relator,

vs. FALSE CLAIMS ACT OUI TAM
COMPLAINT
TCC INTERNATIONAL LLC d/b/a CORE:
CLUB; CORE CLUB MEMBERS CORP; and
CORE: GRAVITY LLC,
UNDER SEAL
Defendants. Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730( b)( 2 )

INTRODUCTION

1. Qui tarn relator, Daniel Foster (“ Relator”), brings this action on his own behalf and

on behalf of the United States of America to recover civil damages and penalties under the Federal

False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 et seq. Relator brings this action against Defendants

TCC International LLC d/b/a CORE Club, CORE Club Members Corp, and CORE: Gravity LLC

(collectively, “ Defendants” or “CORE Entities”).

2. Relator’s allegations concern the illegal applications for and receipt of government

funds by Defendants in their applications for relief under the Paycheck Protection Program ( PPP )

and the Restaurant Revitalization Fund ( RRF ).

3. In summary, upon information and belief, beginning in April 2020, Defendants

applied for and received forgiveness of two PPP loans for which , as an invitation -only private

members club, the CORE Entities were ineligible. Additionally , upon information and belief,

Defendants applied for an RRF grant for which the CORE entities were ineligible.

KH 794397. D0CX
Case 1:23-cv-10084-MKV Document 7 Filed 08/20/25 Page 2 of 22

4. Defendants knowingly, willfully, and intentionally applied for funds for which the

CORE Entities knew they were ineligible .

5. Defendants knowingly , willfully, and intentionally applied for two PPP loans and

one RRF grant using three different names and entities for each application, giving the appearance

that the applications were unrelated . In doing so, Defendants made misrepresentations about the

CORE Entities’ business structure to the Small Business Administration (“SBA ”) that obfuscated

their ineligibility for, and increased the amount of, relief funds they received .

6. Upon information and belief, the CORE Entities were created to support one

umbrella entity, the CORE Club, which is an invitation -only private members club located in New

York City .

7. By presenting applications and receiving funds under the PPP and RRF programs

while the CORE Entities knew or should have known that these applications were not allowed

under applicable laws and regulations, Defendants violated the FCA.

FEDERAL JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. This action arises under the laws of the United States to redress violations of the

FCA . Subject- matter jurisdiction is conferred over these causes of action by 28 U.S.C. § 1331 , 28

U .S.C. § 1345, and 31 U.S.C. § 3732.

9. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants under 31 U .S.C . § 3732(a),

which provides that actions under the FCA “may be brought in any judicial district in which the

defendant, or in the case of multiple defendants, any one defendant can be found, resides, transacts

business or in which any act proscribed by” the FCA occurred . During the relevant time period ,

Defendants resided and transacted business in this District .

KH 794397 . DOCX 2
Case 1:23-cv-10084-MKV Document 7 Filed 08/20/25 Page 3 of 22

10. Venue lies under 28 U.S.C. § 1391( b ), and 31 U .S.C. § 3732( a) because Defendants

transact business and reside within this District. Venue is also appropriate because substantial

information supporting the allegations herein is located in this District.

1 1. To the extent , if any, that this case is deemed to be a “ related action” and to the

extent, if any , that facts set forth herein are deemed to be the same as facts underlying an existing

qui tarn FCA action pending at the time of the filing of this action , as set forth in 31 U.S.C. §

3730( b), said factual allegations in common with any pending action that would cause this case to

be a “related action” are hereby expressly excluded from this action, but only to the limited extent

necessary to avoid the statutory preemption .

12 . Furthermore, to the extent that the allegations or transactions set forth herein are

the subject of civil suit or an administrative civil money penalty proceeding in which the United

States is already a party, if any such proceedings exist, then the allegations or transactions referred

to herein , which are the subject of any such civil suit or administrative civil penalty proceedings

are expressly excluded, but only for the specific time periods, specific companies, and/or specific

allegations or transactions that are already the subject of the civil suit and/or administrative civil

money penalty proceeding.

13. The facts and circumstances of the Defendants’ violation of the FCA have not been

publicly disclosed in a criminal, civil , or administrative hearing, nor in any congressional ,

administrative, or General Accounting Office or Auditor General’s report, hearing, audit, or

investigation , or in the news media .

14. To the extent there has been a public disclosure unknown to Relator, he is an

“original source” within the meaning of 31 U.S.C. §3730(e )(4 )(B ).

KH 794397. D0CX 3
Case 1:23-cv-10084-MKV Document 7 Filed 08/20/25 Page 4 of 22

15. Pursuant to 31 U .S.C. § 3730( b )(2 ), immediately upon filing this Complaint,

Relator will provide the Attorney General with a copy of the Complaint and written disclosure of

substantially all material evidence and information in his possession . Defendants’ illegal conduct

alleged herein began in or about April 2020 and , on information and belief, continued until on or

about March 11, 2023.

PARTIES

16 . Relator Daniel Foster is a resident of New York City, New York , United States,

and Berlin, Germany . Relator’s residence within the United States, includes territory subject to the

jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York .

17. Relator is a former member of a similar private members club in New York, Soho

House. This experience gives him inside knowledge of how these organizations operate, including

their membership policies and business practices.

18. Relator is the founder of a legal technology company specializing in intellectual

property theft detection and management . In that role, he has gained extensive experience in digital

investigations, evidence gathering, and corporate fraud.

19. Relator also holds a Wine & Spirits Education Trust Level 2 certification , providing

him with specialized knowledge of the food and drink industry .

20. Relator used his digital investigative skills to uncover archive data information and

documents related to Defendants, including the CORE: Constitution , which explicitly states that

CORE Club is an invitation-only private members club.

21 . Relator obtained documents showing that Defendants operate an invitation -only

private members club. These materials contradict representations Defendants made to the

government that they operate a restaurant open to the public.

KH 794397. DOCX 4
Case 1:23-cv-10084-MKV Document 7 Filed 08/20/25 Page 5 of 22

22. Relator’s investigative experience helped identify links in a convoluted corporate

structure, which includes Defendants’ use of varying entity names, misleading classifications and

alternating spellings of its business address. It is highly probable that had Relator not discovered

these associations, both the existence and extent of the fraud would remain undetected .

23. Relator brings these claims at potential great personal cost . As a successful

technology founder, Relator’s status as a known whistleblower will effectively make him an

outcast in the business community . Relator is unlikely to be invited to serve in any management

or board role in the future. Relator jeopardizes his ability to receive venture capital funding for any

future ventures, severely limiting his career prospects as an entrepreneur .

24. The United States is a real party in interest under the FCA and ultimately paid the

false claims alleged herein and is entitled to the full recovery of funds sought by this action . The

U .S. Small Business Administration ( SBA ) is an independent agency of the federal government

that was given authority through legislation enacted in response to the COVID- 19 Public Health

Emergency, to provide loans and grants, such as the ones at issues in this action , to qualified small

businesses so that they could keep afloat during the COVID-19 pandemic.

25. Defendant TCC International LLC d /b/a CORE Club is a Delaware limited liability

corporation, with its business operations located at 66 E . 55 th Street, New York , New York

10022. In or about September 2023, CORE Club moved to its new headquarters located at 711

Fifth Avenue, New York , New York .

26. -
Defendant CORE Club Members Corp. is a New York not-for profit corporation

with its business operations located at 66 E. 55 th Street , New York, New York .

KH 794397. DOCX 5
Case 1:23-cv-10084-MKV Document 7 Filed 08/20/25 Page 6 of 22

27. Defendant CORE: Gravity LLC ( CORE Gravity ), is a Delaware limited liability

company and a self-described sole proprietorship, located at 66 E 55 th Street, New York , New

York .

LEGAL AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND

A. The Federal False Claims Act

28 . The FCA prohibits the knowing presentment, making, use, or causation of a false

or fraudulent claim for payment, or record or statement within a claim for payment, or who

conspires to commit such a knowing act . 31 U .S.C. § 3729(a )( 1 ). A person or entity violating the

FCA is liable for civil penalties, subject to exceptions and adjustments; treble damages for harm

sustained by the United States attributable to the fraud ; and the costs of the civil action brought to

recover penalties or damages. Id. § 3729( a )( 1 ), (3).

29. The FCA defines a “claim” to include “any request or demand, whether under a

contract or otherwise, for money or property and whether or not the United States has title to the

money or property that ( i ) is presented to an officer, employee, or agent of the United States; or

( ii ) is made to a contractor, grantee, or other recipient, if the money or property is to be spent or

used on the Government’s behalf or to advance a Government program or interest[.]” Id.

§ 3729( b )( 2 )( A )( i )-( ii ).

30. As set forth in the FCA , “ knowing” means that a person has actual knowledge of

the information or acts in willful ignorance or reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the

information submitted. The United States need not show that the person or entity held a specific

intent to defraud. Id. U.S.C. § 3729( b )( 1 ).

KH 794397. DOCX 6
Case 1:23-cv-10084-MKV Document 7 Filed 08/20/25 Page 7 of 22

31 . The FCA provides that the term “ material ” means “having a natural tendency to

influence, or be capable of influencing, the payment or receipt of money or property .” Id.

§ 3729( b )( 4 ).

32. The standard of proof under the FCA is preponderance of the evidence. 31 U .S.C.

§ 3731 ( d ).

B . The Paycheck Protection Program ( PPP )

33. The Coronavirus Aid , Relief, and Economic Security Act ( “the CARES Act ” ) was

enacted on March 27. 2020, and was designed to provide emergency financial assistance to the

millions of Americans who were suffering the economic effects caused by the COVID- 19

pandemic . The SBA received funding and authority through the CARES Act to modify existing

loan programs and establish a new loan program to assist small businesses nationwide adversely

impacted by the COVID- 19 emergency.

34 . The CARES Act appropriated $349 billion to be used as loans to eligible small

business struggling to pay employees and other business expenses as a result of the devastating

effects of the COVID- 19 pandemic.

35. Section 1102 of the CARES Act temporarily permitted the SBA to guarantee 100

percent of 7( a ) loans under a new program called the “ Paycheck Protection Program” ( “ PPP”).

36. On April 24, 2020, the Paycheck Protection Program and Heath Care Enhancement

Act ( Pub. L . 116- 139) became law and provided additional funding and authority for the PPP . On

June 5, 2020, the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020 ( Flexibility Act ) ( Pub. L.

1 16-142) became law and changed key provisions of the PPP, including provisions relating to the

maturity of PPP loans, the deferral of PPP loan payments, and the forgiveness of PPP loans.

37. Under the PPP in 2020, eligible businesses could obtain one SBA guaranteed loan .

Businesses were required to spend loan proceeds on employee compensation, rent or mortgage,

KH 794397. DOCX 7
Case 1:23-cv-10084-MKV Document 7 Filed 08/20/25 Page 8 of 22

and other specified expenses and, depending on their use of the loan proceeds, could qualify for

loan forgiveness, up to the full amount of the loan .

38. In April 2020, the SBA announced that businesses identified in 13 CFR § 120.110

are not eligible for PPP loans. The regulation specifically mentions in section ( i ) that “[ pjrivate

clubs and businesses which limit the number of memberships for reasons other than capacity” are

ineligible.

39. The SBA delegated authority to third- party lenders to underwrite and approve the

PPP loans. In order to obtain a PPP loan , a qualifying business (through its authorized

representative) signed and submitted a PPP loan application (SBA Form 2483) online through the

lender’s application platform . The PPP loan application required the business to acknowledge the

PPP program rules and make certain affirmative certifications in order to be eligible to obtain the

PPP loan . See PPP Borrower Application Form , SBA Form 2483, Version 1 (eff . Apr. 2, 2020 ) at

https://www.sba.gov /document/sba-form-2483-ppp-first-draw-borrower-application -foiTn ( last

accessed Nov . 1 , 2023 ).

40. Among the certifications the applicant had to make included :

• “The applicant is eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time
this application is submitted that have been issued by the Small Business
Administration (SBA ) implementing the Paycheck Protection Program under
Division A, Title I of the Coronavirus Aid , Relief, and Economic Security Act
( CARES Act ) ( the Paycheck Protection Program Rule ).” Id .

• “The funds will be used to retain workers and maintain payroll or make
mortgage interest payments, lease payments, and utility payments, as specified
under the Paycheck Protection Program Rule; I understand that if the funds
are knowingly used for unauthorized purposes, the federal government
may hold me legally liable, such as for charges of fraud ." Id. ( emphasis
added ) .

KH 794397 . D 0CX 8
Case 1:23-cv-10084-MKV Document 7 Filed 08/20/25 Page 9 of 22

the law including under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 3571 by imprisonment of not more
than five years and /or a fine of up to $250,000; under 15 USC 645 by
imprisonment of not more than two years and/or a find or not more than $5 ,000 ;
and , if submitted to a federal insured institution, under 18 USC 1014 by
imprisonment of not more than thirty years and /or a find or not more than
$ 1 ,000,000 .” Id. ( emphasis added ).

41 . Once the borrower submitted its PPP loan application to a participating lender, the

lender processed the loan application. If a PPP loan application was approved by the lender, it

thereafter funded the PPP loan using its own monies, which were 100% guaranteed by the SB A.

42. After the lender processed and approved a borrower’s PPP loan application , but

prior to the closing of the PPP loan, the lender submitted to the SBA the “ Lender’s Application

Paycheck Protection Program Loan Guaranty” (SBA Form 2484 ) applying for a guarantee on the

loan. For a PPP loan to be approved , the lender was required to answer “yes” to Section F of the

form that “[t ]he Applicant has certified to the Lender that the Applicant is eligible under the

Paycheck Protection Rules.” Lender Application Form - PPP Loan Guaranty, SBA Form 2484,

Version 1 (eff. Apr. 3, 2020 ) at https://www.sba.gov /document/sba-form-2484- lender-application -

form -paycheck -protection- program-loan-guaranty ( last accessed Nov . 1 , 2023 ).

43. Therefore, if a PPP borrower lied on its PPP loan application , the PPP borrower’s

false certification caused the lender to submit to the SBA with respect to that PPP loan an

application for a loan guarantee that contained the borrower’s False Statement .

44. The PPP loan program was funded again by the Consolidated Appropriations Act,

2021 (Pub. L . 116-260) for an additional $284 billion, and by the American Rescue Plan Act of

2021 ( Pub. L . 117-2 ) for an additional $7 billion . These laws allowed businesses that did not obtain

a PPP loan in 2020 to obtain one and allowed certain businesses that did receive a PPP loan in

2020 to obtain a second loan .

KH 794397 . DOCX 9
Case 1:23-cv-10084-MKV Document 7 Filed 08/20/25 Page 10 of 22

45. The process for obtaining a second draw PPP loan was similar, however, potential

borrowers would submit SBA Form 2483-SD to a lender. See PPP Borrower Application Form,

SBA Form 2483-SD, Version 4 (eff. Mar. 18, 2021 ) at https://www .sba.gov /document/sba-fonn -

2483-sd-ppp-second-draw-borrower-application-form ( last accessed Nov. 1 , 2023). Potential

borrowers submitting an application for a PPP second draw loan make the same certifications

contained in the PPP first draw loan . See id. If a PPP second draw loan application was approved

by a participating lender, it thereafter funded the PPP loan using its own monies, which were 100%

guaranteed by the SBA .

46. Like with a first draw loan , once the borrower submitted its second draw PPP loan

application, the lender processed and approved the application . Prior to the closing of the PPP

second draw loan , the lender submitted to the SBA form 2484-SD applying for a guarantee on the

loan. For a PPP loan to be approved , the lender was required to answer “ yes” to Section F that

“[t]he Applicant has certified to the Lender that the Applicant is eligible under the Paycheck

-
Protections Rules.” PPP Second Draw Lender Application Form , SBA Form 2484 SD, Version 3

(eff. Mar. 18, 2021 ) at https://www .sba.gov /document/sba-form-2484-sd-ppp-second-draw-

lender-application-form ( last accessed Nov. 1 , 2023 ).

47 . Therefore, if a PPP borrower lied on its PPP loan application, the PPP borrower’s

false certification(s ) caused the lender to submit to the SBA a loan guarantee application for that

PPP loan that contained the borrower’s false certification( s).

C. The Restaurant Revitalization Fund ( RRF )

48. The American Rescue Plan Act ( Pub. L. 117-2 ) was enacted on March 11 , 2021 ,

which, like the CARES Act, was designed to provide emergency financial assistance to aid with

the country’s ongoing economic recovery during the pandemic. One source of relief provided by

the American Rescue Plan Act was the authorization of up to $28.6 billion for the RRF, which was

KH 794397 . D0CX 10
Case 1:23-cv-10084-MKV Document 7 Filed 08/20/25 Page 11 of 22

a grant program to support restaurants and bars that suffered economic losses because of the

pandemic. Each business was eligible for up to $5 million in assistance.

49. The RRF allowed qualifying businesses to apply for grant funding related to their

pandemic-related revenue losses. RRF proceeds were required to be used by businesses on payroll,

mortgages, rents, debt service, utility payments, maintenance expenses, construction of outdoor

seating, business supplies, business food and beverage expenses, covered supplier costs, or

business operating expenses. The program required that any business that received a grant spend

the proceeds on these expense items by March 11, 2023. Grants received through the RRF did not

need to be paid back .

50. Like with PPP, the RRF program was administered by the SBA. To apply for RRF

grant funding, applicants could apply through a recognized SBA Restaurant Partner, through the

SBA directly online, or over the phone.

51 . Eligible businesses included entities that were “not permanently closed and

include[d ] businesses where the public or patrons assemble for the primary purpose of being served

food or drink .” These businesses included restaurants, bars, inns and other similar venues . ( RRF

Program Guide, April 28, 2021 ).

52 . The SBA stated that “[ t]o satisfy the statutory requirement for ‘ place of business in

which the public or patrons assemble for the primary purpose of being served food or drink ,’ an

eligible entity must have at least 33% in 2019 on-site sales to the public . ” Id .

53. The SBA also stated that non - profit organizations are not eligible . Id . at 5.

54. The SBA outlined how to calculate how much money a qualified business was

eligible for under the RRF grant program , which included the instruction that any applicant must

“[sjubtract the aggregate original disbursement amount ( s) of any PPP loan ( First Draw PPP Loan

KH 794397. DOCX I1
Case 1:23-cv-10084-MKV Document 7 Filed 08/20/25 Page 12 of 22

and Second Draw PPP Loan ) received , regardless of whether received in 2020 or 2021 . Do not

include any amount that you repaid on or before May 18, 2020, in accordance with PPP safe harbor

rules.” Id. at 7.

55. To apply for an RRF grant, a qualifying business ( through its authorized

representative ) signed and submitted a RRF Funding Application (SBA Form 3172 ). The RRF

loan application required the business to acknowledge the RRF program rules and make certain

affirmative certifications in order to be eligible to obtain the RRF grant. See RRF Funding

Application , SBA Form 3172, Version 2 ( eff. Apr. 19, 2021 ) at

https://www .sba.gov /document /sba-form-3172- restaurant- revitalization -funding-application -

sample ( last accessed Nov . 6, 2023 ).

56. Among the certifications a borrower would have had to make included :

• “1 understand that by signing this application and accepting RRF funds, 1 am
agreeing that no later than the end of the covered period, I will certify to SBA
that the Applicant business used all funds only on eligible uses within the
covered period . ” Id. (emphasis added ).

• “ I further certify that the information provided in this application and the
information provided in all supporting documents and forms is true and
accurate in all material respects . I understand that knowingly making a
false statement to obtain a grant from SBA is punishable under the law ,
including under 18 U .S.C. 1001 and 3571 by imprisonment of not more than
five years and /or a find of up to $250,000; under 15 U .S.C. 645 by
imprisonment of not more than two years and/or a find of not more than $5,000;
and, if submitted to a federally insured institution , under 18 U.S. C. 1014 by
imprisonment of not more than thirty years and /or a find of not more than
$ 1 ,000,000.” Id . ( emphasis added ).

• "The Applicant is eligible to receive funding under the rules in effect at the
time this application is submitted . ” Id. ( emphasis added ).

BACKGROUND ON DEFENDANTS

57. Each of the Defendant entities named in this matter relate to CORE Club, which is

an elite invitation-only private members club in New York City founded in 2005.

KH 794397. DOCX 12
Case 1:23-cv-10084-MKV Document 7 Filed 08/20/25 Page 13 of 22

58. CORE Club was based at 66 E 55 th Street in New York City until on or about

September 2023. After this date, it moved one block west to 711 Fifth Avenue.

59. CORE Club members are drawn from the financial and social elite of New York .

60. An internal document for members, known as the “CORE: Constitution ,” states,

“ All categories of membership are by invitation only . ”

61 . From 2005 to 2021, CORE Club primarily conducted business through two entities:

a . CORE Club Members Corp : A New York not-for-profit entity that founding

club members may hold shares in . This entity also operates the club’s liquor

license.

b. TCC International LLC : This is a Delaware corporation with a branch in New

York . TCC International is listed in the entity details for CORE Club Members

Corp.

62. At a time unknown to Relator, the self-described sole proprietorship CORE Gravity

became associated with CORE Club.

DEFENDANTS’ FRAUDULENT SCHEME

63. Defendants have been and , on information and belief, were engaged in a scheme to

submit claims for relief under the PPP and RRF programs.

64 . Defendants improperly applied for and received government funds totaling

$4,608,762.50 through the PPP and RRF programs.

65. In both PPP applications, Defendants ignored published guidelines from the SBA

stating that private clubs that limit the number of memberships for reasons other than capacity are

ineligible for these programs. 13 CFR § 120.110 . As previously stated , in April 2020, the SBA

announced that businesses that are not eligible for PPP loans are identified in 13 CFR § 120.110.

KH 794397. DOCX 13
Case 1:23-cv-10084-MKV Document 7 Filed 08/20/25 Page 14 of 22

That regulation specifically mentions in section (i ) that “[p]rivate clubs and businesses which limit

the number of memberships for reasons other than capacity” are ineligible.

66 . For each PPP forgiveness application , Defendants falsely attested that “[t ] he

Borrower has accurately verified the payments for the eligible payroll and nonpayroll costs for

which the Borrower is requesting forgiveness.” Further, Defendants acknowledged that they

understood that “ if the funds were knowingly used for unauthorized purposes, the federal

government may pursue recovery of loan amounts and /or civil or criminal fraud charges.” ( PPP

Loan Forgiveness Application form 3508).

67. Separate and apart from Defendants’ ineligibility for PPP loans, Defendants were

also ineligible for the RRF grant they ultimately obtained because the entity under which it applied

- CORE Club Members Corp. - is a not-for- profit corporation . The RRF program rules exclude

not-for-profit companies.

68 . To obtain an RRF grant, Defendants had to certify that “[ t ]he Applicant is eligible

to receive funding under the rules in effect at the time this application is submitted .”

69. The RRF Program Guide at the time of Defendants’ application specifically said

that non -profit organizations are not eligible for RRF grants.

70. Consequently, when CORE Club Members Corp. applied for an RRF grant, it

falsely certified that it was eligible to receive funds.

71 . Defendants applied for two PPP loans and one RRF grant by using three different

names and entities for each application ; each was used to support the umbrella CORE Club

organization.

A. The First PPP Loan

72. Upon information and belief, on April 10, 2020, CORE Club, using the name

“CORE Gravity” received approval for a first draw PPP loan of $960,400 ( loan number

KH 794397. DOCX 14
Case 1:23-cv-10084-MKV Document 7 Filed 08/20/25 Page 15 of 22

2560007100 ). The entity CORE Gravity had never been used in any prior business filings related

to CORE Club.

73. CORE Gravity falsely identified itself as a sole proprietorship when it should have

identified itself as a corporation. Id.

74. The loan applicant reported 74 employees. Id.

75. CORE Gravity listed its business address as 66 E 55 th St , the same address as

CORE Club . Id .

76. CORE Gravity chose the age category, “Startup, Loan Funds will Open Business,”

and business category, “Golf Courses and Country Clubs” on its application ( NAICS code

713910 ) .

77. Although Relator does not possess a copy of CORE Gravity’s final borrower

application form submitted to its lender, CORE Gravity was required to certify to the truth and

accuracy of the representations referenced in Paragraph 40 of this Complaint , the falsity of which

is punishable by significant liability, fines, and imprisonment.

78. On November 1 , 2021 , $453,033 of the $960,400 loan was forgiven. Id.

79. CORE Gravity used the funding for CORE Club. As an invitation -only private

members club, CORE Club was ineligible fora PPP loan under 13 CFR § 120.110.

80. Upon information and belief, in submitting its PPP loan application, CORE Gravity

falsely certified to the lender that it was eligible for a PPP loan , thereby causing the lender to

submit its loan guarantee for this PPP loan to the government that was based on CORE Gravity’s

false certification.

KH 794397. DOCX 15
Case 1:23-cv-10084-MKV Document 7 Filed 08/20/25 Page 16 of 22

B. The Second PPP Loan

81. On March 30, 2021, TCC International LLC received approval for a PPP loan of

$ 1 ,344,675.50 ( loan number 2618178704 ).

82. The loan applicant reported 74 employees, the same number as reported in the first

PPP application submitted by CORE Gravity . Id .

83. TCC International LLC used the same, albeit misspelled, address of “66 E E 55 th

St .” Id .

84. TCC International LLC falsely identified itself as a sole proprietorship on the

application . It should have classified itself as an LLC or corporation . Id .

85. It chose the following business age category: “Existing or more than 2 years old .”

Id .

86 . TCC International LLC used the business category, “Pull-Service Restaurants” on

its application ( NAICS code 72251 I ). This is inconsistent with the application made by CORE

Gravity , which used the business category “Golf Courses and Country Clubs .”

87. Although Relator does not possess a copy of TCC International LLC’s final

borrower application form submitted to its lender, TCC International LLC was required to certify

to the truth and accuracy of the representations referenced in Paragraph 40 of this Complaint, the

falsity of which is punishable by significant liability, fines, and imprisonment .

88 . On April 4, 2022, TCC International LLC received loan forgiveness on $ 1 ,358,085.

Id .

It does not appear that TCC International LLC received a first draw loan , however, raw data from
the Small Business Administration indicates this was a second draw loan . If it was a first draw
.
loan Defendants would have had to falsely certify that they had not received another first draw
loan .

KH 794397. D0 CX 16
Case 1:23-cv-10084-MKV Document 7 Filed 08/20/25 Page 17 of 22

89. TCC International LLC used the funding for CORE Club. As an invitation-only

private members club, CORE Club was ineligible for a PPP loan under 13 CFR § 120.110.

90. Upon information and belief, in submitting its PPP loan application, TCC

International LLC falsely certified to the lender that it was eligible for a PPP loan , thereby causing

the lender to submit its loan guarantee for this PPP loan to the government that was based on TCC

International LLC’s false certification .

C. The Restaurant Revitalization Fund Grant ( RRF )

91 . On May 25, 2021 , CORE Club Members Corp was approved for a RRF grant

totaling $ 2,303,687 ( loan number 7536729001 ).

92. CORE Club Members Corp represented itself under the categories “ Restaurant ”

and “Corporation .”

93. -
However, CORE Club Members Corp is registered as a not for-profit corporation .

It holds a “members only” liquor license under the same name in the state of New York , which

has a separate liquor license category for private clubs.

94 . The RRF program rules explicitly exclude non -profit corporations. The program

rules also exclude establishments that do not serve food or drink to the public. Furthermore, the

RRF program guide published by the SBA states, “[ businesses are ineligible if any of the

provisions in 13 CRF § 120.110 applies.” This would include invitation-only private members

clubs.

95. CORE Club Members Corp further failed “[ t ]o satisfy the statutory requirement

for ‘place of business in which the public or patrons assemble for the primary purpose of being

-
served food or drink,’ an eligible entity must have at least 33% in 2019 on site sales to the

public.” 52, supra . Of course, CORE Club, who was the sole beneficiary of the RRF grant is a
^
private members club which had 0% on -site sales to the public - in any year.

KH 794397. DOCX 17
Case 1:23-cv-10084-MKV Document 7 Filed 08/20/25 Page 18 of 22

96. The applicant listed a franchise name of “Green Restoration” on the application and

registered the same franchise name with the SBA Franchise Directory .2

97. Under the RRF program rules, PPP loans must be deducted from the RRF grant

total .2

98. Although Relator does not possess a copy of CORE Club Members Corp’s final

RRF Funding Application Form submitted to the SBA, CORE Club Members Corp was required

to certify to the truth and accuracy of the representations referenced in Paragraph 56 of this

Complaint, the falsity of which is punishable by significant liability, fines, and imprisonment. All

such certifications were false.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT 1

False or Fraudulent Claims ( U .S.C. § 3729( a )( 1 )( A ))

99. Relator incorporates by reference and re-alleges paragraphs 1 -98 of this

Complaint as if fully set forth herein .

100. This is a claim for treble damages and civil penalties under the FCA, 31 U.S.C. §

3729( a )( 1 )( A ).

101 . Defendants knowingly presented , or caused to be presented , to an officer or

employee of the United States government, false or fraudulent claims for payment or approval , in

2
The franchise was registered on January 19, 2021 .
' Relator was unable to ascertain whether any PPP loans previously received
by the various entities
were deducted from the RRF grant total for CORE Club Members Corp. Nonetheless, given that
the CORE Entities applied for these three loans under different corporate entities, it is unlikely
CORE Club Members Corp. listed the previous loans on the CORE Entities’ RRF grant
application .

KH 794397 . DOCX 18
Case 1:23-cv-10084-MKV Document 7 Filed 08/20/25 Page 19 of 22

violation of the FCA, 31 U .S.C. § 3729( a )( 1 )( A ), specifically, that Defendants submitted false or

fraudulent applications for its first and second draw PPP loans, and for its RRF grant.

102 . The United States Government, unaware of the material falsity of the claims made

or caused to be made by the Defendants, approved, paid , and participated in payments made by

the Government’s fiscal intermediaries for the PPP loans and RRF grant that otherwise would not

have been allowed .

103 . As a direct and proximate result of the false and fraudulent claims made by

Defendants, the United States Government has been damaged, on information and belief, in the

amount of at least $4.6 millon .

COUNT II

False Statements (31 U .S.C. § 3729( a )( 1 )( B ) )

104. Relator incoiporates by reference paragraphs 1 -98 of this Complaint as if fully set

forth herein .

105. This is a claim for treble damages and civil penalties under the FCA, 31 § U .S.C.

3729 ( a )( 1 )( B ) .

106. Defendants knowingly made, used , or caused to be made or used , a false record

or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim, and/or to get the United States to pay or

approve false claims, in violation of the FCA, 31 § U .S.C. 3729( a )( 1 )( B ), and payment of those

false or fraudulent claims by the United States was a reasonable and foreseeable consequence of

those statements and actions.

107. These records and statements that Defendants caused to be false included false

certifications that Defendants were eligible for PPP loan disbursal , PPP loan forgiveness, and RRF

grants, when in fact they were not .

KH 794397. DOCX 19
Case 1:23-cv-10084-MKV Document 7 Filed 08/20/25 Page 20 of 22

108. Defendants caused to be made or used, such false records or statements with

actual knowledge of their falsity, or with reckless disregard or deliberate ignorance of whether or

not they were false.

109. As a direct and proximate result of the false and fraudulent claims made by

Defendants, the United States Government has been damaged , on information and belief, in the

amount of at least $4.6 million .

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Relator respectfully requests this Court to enter judgment against

Defendants by acting as follows:

a ) Granting permanent injunctive relief to prevent any recurrence of violating the FCA,

31 U .S.C. §§ 3729, et seq. , for which redress is sought in this Complaint;

b ) Awarding to the United States of America three times the amount of damages it

sustained due to the false claims and fraud alleged in the foregoing paragraphs;

c ) Awarding to the United States of America the maximum civil penalty for each violation

of 31 U .S.C. § 3729;

d ) Awarding pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and expenses of litigation including

reasonable attorneys’ fees which the Relator necessarily incurred in filing and

advancing this action pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730( d );

e ) Awarding to Relator the maximum relator’s share amount allowed to him under the

FCA , 31 U .S.C. § 3730( d ), based upon the total value recovered , both tangible and

intangible, including any amounts recovered from individuals and entities not party to

this action ;

KH 794397. DOCX 20
Case 1:23-cv-10084-MKV Document 7 Filed 08/20/25 Page 21 of 22

f ) Enjoining Defendants from concealing, removing, encumbering, or disposing of assets

which may be required to pay damages, penalties, fines, attorneys’ fees and costs

awarded by the Court; and

g) Awarding such other and further relief as it deems proper.

//
//
//

KH 794397. DOCX 21
Case 1:23-cv-10084-MKV Document 7 Filed 08/20/25 Page 22 of 22

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Relator hereby demands a

trial by jury .

DATED: November jb , 2023

By :

Rolando G . Marquez ( NY Bar No. Moll 311 )
( Of Counsel to Kirk Chapman Law LLC )
Kirk Chapman (NY Bar No. 2425650 )
KIRK CHAPMAN LAW LLC
415 East 37th Street, #29 K
New York , New York 10016
Tel : ( 917 ) 951 -0391
rolandomarquez@aol .com
kirkchapmanlaw@gmail .com

Local Counsel for Plaintiff-Relator
Daniel Foster

Zahra S . Karinshak ( GA Bar No. 407911 )
John F. Cartwright ( DC Bar No . 1673557 )
KREVOLIN & HORST , LLC
1201 W. Peachtree Street, N . W .
Suite 3250. One Atlantic Center
Atlanta. GA 30309
Tel: ( 404 ) 888-9700
Fax: (404 ) 888-9577
Karinshak @ klilawfinn .com
Cartwright @ khlawfirm .com

Lead Counsel for Plaintiff -Relator
Daniel Foster

KH 794397. D 0 CX n

File and source

File: 7-relator-qui-tam-complaint-unsealed-us-ex-rel-daniel-foster-v.pdf
Size: 6,094,483 bytes
SHA-256: e03fa7bdd751e74d9b9975468b86a6538dcf6508bbb28e935bb438c88609c7a3
Our copy: 7-relator-qui-tam-complaint-unsealed-us-ex-rel-daniel-foster-v.pdf
Original: archive.org