Qui Tam Complaint — Forsyth v. Herb Chambers (D. Mass.)

Summary

A qui tam complaint under the False Claims Act, United States of America ex rel. Aidan Forsyth v. Herb Chambers 395 Broadway Inc., et al., No. 1:24-cv-11177, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, filed under seal on May 2, 2024 as Document 1. The relator alleges that twenty-nine HCC entities received a total of $30,253,955.90 of forgiven first-draw PPP loans, of which $7,659,391.13 exceeded the SBA's $20,000,000.00 limit for affiliated corporate entities. It alleges, upon information and belief, that the Eight Entities named as defendants canceled their original first-draw loans and reapplied to avoid the limit, and obtained forgiveness in or about May 2021. The complaint seeks treble damages, civil penalties of $13,946.00 to $27,894.00 per claim and a jury trial, and is signed by Christine M. Kingston for the relator.

Summary drafted by a model from the text of the original file linked on this page 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

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

a

Case 1:24-cv-11177-PBS Document1i Filed 05/02/24 Page 1 of 33

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Civil Action No.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
ex rel. AIDAN FORSYTH, Hon.
Plaintiff-Relator, QUI TAM COMPLAINT
v. FILED UNDER SEAL
PURSUANT TO

HERB CHAMBERS 395 BROADWAY INC.,
JENNINGS ROAD MANAGEMENT CORP.,
HERB CHAMBERS 1168 INC.,

HERB CHAMBERS CAMBRIDGE STREET JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
INC., HERB CHAMBERS 1172 INC.,
HERB CHAMBERS OF WAYLAND INC.,
DAVE DINGER FORD INC. and

HERB CHAMBERS OF MILLBURY INC.,

31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2)

Defendants.

On behalf of the United States of America (the “United States” or the “Government”),
Plaintiff and Relator Aidan Forsyth (“Relator”) files this gui tam action against Herb Chambers
395 Broadway Inc. (“HC395”), Jennings Road Management Corp. (“JRMC”), Herb Chambers
1168 Inc. (““HC1168”), Herb Chambers Cambridge Street Inc. (““HCCSI”), Herb Chambers 1172
Inc. (“* HC1172”), Herb Chambers of Wayland Inc. (“HCWI”), Dave Dinger Ford Inc. (“DDFI’”)
and Herb Chambers of Millbury Inc. (“HCM”) (collectively, the “Herb Chambers Companies”
(“HCC”) or “Defendants”), and alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1, This is an action to recover treble damages, civil penalties and all other remedies

on behalf of the United States of America in connection with the Defendants’ materially false and

SHN\789600.3
Case 1:24-cv-11177-PBS Document1 Filed 05/02/24 Page 2 of 33

fraudulent applications to the Government for loans under the Paycheck Protection Program
(“PPP”) in violation of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 et seq. (the “FCA”).

2. Pursuant to the FCA, Relator seeks to recover, on behalf of the United States of
America, damages and civil penalties arising from false or fraudulent claims for payment that
Defendants submitted or caused to be submitted to the Federal Government-funded and/or
subsidized PPP loan programs.

SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS

3. The Herb Chambers Companies (“HCC”) family of businesses was founded in
1985 in New London, CT by Herbert G. Chambers and today, HCC operates approximately 60 car
dealerships in the Boston metropolitan area and throughout New England.

4. At all times relevant to this action, Mr. Chambers was president and treasurer of
each of the HCC entities.

5. James Duchesneau was the CFO of HCC and had held this position since August
2011.

6. Early in the PPP loan program, and expressly “to preserve the limited resources
available to the PPP program,” the SBA instituted a limitation for businesses that were part of a
single corporate group, permitting them to receive no more than $20,000,000.00 of PPP loans in
the aggregate. The SBA required any applicant or recipient of a PPP loan to withdraw or request
cancellation of any pending application loan not in excess of the cap and warned that borrowers
who failed to comply would be considered to have used loan proceeds for unauthorized purposes
and such loans would not be forgiven. Early in 2021, the SBA placed a $4,000,000 cap on second-
draw PPP loans to a single corporate group, likewise to “promote the availability of PPP loans to

the largest possible number of borrowers[.]”
a

Case 1:24-cv-11177-PBS Document1 Filed 05/02/24 Page 3 of 33

7. Twenty-nine HCC entities received a total of $30,253,955.90 of forgiven first-draw
PPP loans, however, $7,659,391.13 exceeded the Small Business Administration (“SBA”)
$20,000,000.00 loan limit for affiliated corporate entities.

8. Twenty-one HCC entities received their first-draw funding properly and timely
through Bank of America (“BOA”).

9. However, upon information and belief, eight HCC entities, HCWI, HC1172, DDFI,
HC395, HCCSI, HC1168, JRMC, and HCM (the “Eight Entities”) attempted to avoid the $20
million limit by canceling their original first-draw PPP loans and applying for another first-draw
PPP loan.

10. —_— In or about July 2020, each of the Eight Entities applied for their second first-draw
loans, well after the April 30, 2020, effective date for the SBA’s $20 million loan limit.

11. | Upon information and belief, Mr. Chambers and/or Mr. Duchesneau prepared or
caused to be prepared the loan applications for each of the Eight entities.

12. The applications required the applicants’ designated representatives to certify that
the Eight Entities were eligible businesses under SBA rules. The applications also required the
representative to acknowledge that the information submitted was material to the Government, to
certify that it was true and correct, and to acknowledge that submitting a materially false
application would violate Federal law.

13. In an effort to circumvent the $20 million corporate group cap, the Eight Entities’
representatives falsely and fraudulently certified that the businesses were eligible businesses under
SBA rules, including that they had no (or a limited number of) affiliated businesses. They also
expressly acknowledged that this was a material question, and that submitting a materially false

application would violate federal law.
al

Case 1:24-cv-11177-PBS Document1 Filed 05/02/24 Page 4 of 33

14. In reliance upon the Eight Entities’ false statements and certifications, U.S. Bank
extended PPP loans to the Eight Entities in an amount totaling $7,659,391.13.

15. In or about May 2021, the Eight Entities sought and obtained forgiveness of their
PPP loans.

16. The PPP Loan Forgiveness Application Form required the applicant’s
representative to certify that they had complied with all requirements in the PPP Rules provided
under the Small Business Act, the PPP interim final rules, and guidance issued by SBA through
the date of the forgiveness application. The application also required the representative to certify
that all information provided was “true and correct in all material respects” and to acknowledge
that “knowingly making a false statement to obtain forgiveness of an SBA-guaranteed loan” was
punishable under Federal law with imprisonment and/or fines.

17. Upon information and belief, the Eight Entities’ representatives falsely and
fraudulently certified that the businesses had all complied with the SBA’s PPP loan requirements
and were therefore entitled to loan forgiveness.

18. | Had Defendants been truthful in their statements and certifications to U.S. Bank,
i.e. that the Eight Entities were owned and operated by HCC, along with 21 other entities that had
already received PPP loan approval in an amount that already reached the SBA’s $20 million loan
limit, the loans never would have been issued.

19. Relator files this gui tam lawsuit to enable the Government to recover from
Defendants the SBA-guaranteed, granted and forgiven monies that were provided to Defendants

as the result of their wrongdoing, as well as to recover treble damages and/or penalties.
Case 1:24-cv-11177-PBS Documenti1 Filed 05/02/24 Page 5of 33

JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

20. This Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1331 because it arises under the laws of the United States, under 31 U.S.C. § 3729 of the
False Claims Act, and under 28 U.S.C. § 1345, which provides the United States District Courts
with original jurisdiction over all civil actions commenced by the United States of America.

21. In addition, the FCA specifically confers jurisdiction upon the United States
District Courts under 31 U.S.C. § 3732. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants
pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3732(a) because the Defendants at all relevant times conducted business
in this District, maintained places of business in this District, and/or submitted PPP Loan
applications and requests for loan forgiveness from this District.

22. Venue is proper in this District under 31 U.S.C. § 3732(a) because certain of the
acts complained of herein occurred in this District.

23. ‘In accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2), this Complaint has filed been filed in
camera and will remain under seal for a period of at least 60 days, and shall not be served on the
Defendants until the Court so orders.

24. Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2), the Relator must provide the Government with
a copy of the Complaint and a written disclosure of substantially all material evidence and material
information in his possession contemporaneous with the filing of the Complaint. Relator has
complied with this provision by serving copies of the Complaint and such disclosure upon the
Honorable Joshua S. Levy, United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, and upon the
Honorable Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States.

25. Relator is not aware that the allegations in this Complaint have been publicly

disclosed. In any event, this Court has jurisdiction under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4) because the
Case 1:24-cv-11177-PBS Document1 Filed 05/02/24 Page 6of 33

Relator is an “original source” since he has voluntarily provided his information to Government
before filing this Complaint, and has knowledge which is both direct and independent of, and
materially adds to, any public disclosures to the extent they may exist.

PARTIES

26. Plaintiff/Relator Aidan Forsyth resides at 55 West 8'" Street, New York, NY 10011.

27. | The Herb Chambers Companies is headquartered at 259 McGrath Highway in
Somerville, Massachusetts 02143 and operates 60 car dealership locations. HCC is owned by Mr.
Chambers.

28. Defendant Herb Chambers of Wayland Inc. was incorporated in the State of
Massachusetts on or about January 18, 2007. Its principal place of business is located at 533
Boston Post Road, Wayland, MA 01778. HCWI is in the business of motor vehicle sales and
service of motor vehicles.

29. Defendant Herb Chambers 1172, Inc. was incorporated in the State of
Massachusetts on or about March 4, 1999. Its principal place of business is located at 1168
Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA 02115. HC1172 is in the business of motor vehicle sales
and service of motor vehicles.

30. Defendant Dave Dinger Ford, Inc. was incorporated in the State of Massachusetts
on or about August 8, 1966. Its principal place of business is located at 75 Granite Street, Braintree,
MA 02184. DDFI is in the business of motor vehicle sales and service of motor vehicles.

31. Defendant Herb Chambers 395 Broadway, Inc. was incorporated in the State of
Massachusetts on or about October 9, 2012. Its principal place of business is located at 395
Broadway, Lynnfield, MA 01940. HC395 is in the business of motor vehicle sales and service of

motor vehicles.
Case 1:24-cv-11177-PBS Documenti1 Filed 05/02/24 Page 7 of 33

32. | Defendant Herb Chambers Cambridge Street, Inc. was incorporated in the State of
Massachusetts on or about August 9, 2006. Its principal place of business is located at 62
Cambridge Street, Burlington, MA 01803. HCCSI is in the business of motor vehicle sales and
service of motor vehicles.

33. Defendant Herb Chambers 1168, Inc. was incorporated in the State of
Massachusetts on or about March 4, 1999. Its principal place of business is located at 32 Brighton
Avenue, Boston, MA 02134. HC1168 is in the business of motor vehicle sales and service of motor
vehicles.

34. | Defendant Jennings Road Management Corporation was incorporated in the State
of Massachusetts on or about May 28, 1992 and in the State of Connecticut on April 9, 1986. Its
principal place of business is located at 47 Eastern Boulevard, Glastonbury, CT 06033. JRMC is
in the business of motor vehicle sales and service of motor vehicles.

35. | Defendant Herb Chambers of Millbury Inc. was incorporated in the State of
Massachusetts on or about February 9, 1998. Its principal place of business is located at 2 Latti
Farm Road, Millbury, MA 01527. HCM is in the business of motor vehicle sales and service.

36. Herbert G. Chambers is an individual who resides at 317 Ferry Road, Old Lyme,
Connecticut 06371. Mr. Chambers is the owner and President of HCC.

37. James Duchesneau is an individual who resides at 304 Old Farms Road, South
Glastonbury, Connecticut 06073. Mr. Duchesneau is the CFO of HCC and has held this position
since 2011.

GOVERNING LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND CODES OF CONDUCT
The False Claims Act

38. Originally enacted in 1863, the FCA was substantially amended in 1986 by the
False Claims Amendments Act. The 1986 amendments enhanced the Government’s ability to

7
Case 1:24-cv-11177-PBS Document1 Filed 05/02/24 Page 8 of 33

recover losses sustained as a result of fraud against the United States. Further clarifying
amendments were adopted in May 2009 and March 2010.

39. The FCA imposes liability upon any person who “knowingly presents, or causes to
be presented [to the Government] a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval”; or
“knowingly makes, uses or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a
false or fraudulent claim”; or “knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record
or statement material to an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government, or
knowingly conceals or knowingly and improperly avoids or decreases an obligation to pay or
transmit money or property to the Government.” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A), (B), (G). Any person
found to have violated these provisions or conspired to have violated these provisions is liable for
a civil penalty of at least $13,946.00 and up to $27,894.00 for each such false or fraudulent claim,
plus three times the amount of the damages sustained by the Government. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a), 20
CFR Part 356 and 28 CFR Part 85 (see 88 FR 5776, Feb. 12, 2024).

40. | The FCA defines the terms “knowing” and “knowingly” to mean that a person (1)
“has actual knowledge of the information”; (2) “acts in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity
of the information”; or acts “in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the information.” 31
U.S.C. § 3729(b)(1)(A). The statute provides that “no proof of specific intent to defraud” is
required. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(1)(B).

41. | The FCA also broadly defines a “claim” as one that includes “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
Case 1:24-cv-11177-PBS Document1 Filed 05/02/24 Page 9 of 33

or interest, and if the United States Government — (i) provides or has provided any portion of the
money or property requested or demanded; or (ii) will reimburse such contractor, grantee, or other
recipient for any portion of the money or property which is requested or demanded.” 31 U.S.C. §
3729(b)(2)(A).

42. |The FCA empowers private persons having information regarding a false or
fraudulent claim against the Government to bring an action on behalf of the Government and to
share in any recovery. The complaint must be filed under seal without service on any Defendant.
The complaint remains under seal while the Government conducts an investigation of the
allegations in the complaint and determines whether to intervene in the action. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b).

43. In this action, and under well-established precedent, the false and fraudulent nature
of Defendants’ conduct is informed or measured by their violation of, or failure to comply with,
certain statutes and regulations material to the submission of applications for government-

subsidized and/or issued small business loans.

The CARES Act Authorizes Paycheck Protection Program Loans and Economic
Injury Disaster Loans and Grants

44. |The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act (Pub. L. 116-
136) (the “CARES Act” or the “Act”) was enacted in March 2020 to provide emergency financial
assistance to individuals and businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Act provided
the federal Smal! Business Administration (“SBA”) with funding and authority to modify existing
loan programs and establish a new loan program to assist small businesses adversely affected by
the pandemic.

45. Section 1102 of the CARES Act authorized the SBA to guarantee up to $349 billion
in forgivable 7(a) loans to small businesses for job retention and other expenses. This program

was called the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”). In April 2020, Congress authorized over
Case 1:24-cv-11177-PBS Document1 Filed 05/02/24 Page 10 of 33

$300 billion to additionally fund the PPP. In June 2020, the Paycheck Protection Program
Flexibility Act of 2020 (Pub. L. 116-142) was enacted which changed certain provisions of the
PPP, including provisions relating to the maturity of loans, the deferral of loan payments, and loan
forgiveness.

46. Under the PPP, eligible businesses could obtain one SBA-guaranteed PPP loan.
Businesses were required to spend loan proceeds for employee compensation, rent or mortgage,
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.

47. Early in the PPP loan program, the SBA instituted a limitation for businesses that
were part of a single corporate group, permitting them to receive no more than $20,000,000.00 of
PPP loans in the aggregate. The limitation defined businesses that were part of a “single corporate
group” as those that were “majority owned, directly or indirectly, by a common parent.” The
limitation was effective for any loan that had not been fully disbursed as of April 30, 2020. See 85
Fed. Reg. 26324, 26325 (May 4, 2020).

48. | The SBA specified that “[i]t is the responsibility of an applicant for a PPP loan to
notify the lender if the applicant has applied for or received PP loans in excess of the amount
permitted by this interim final rule and withdraw or request cancellation of any pending PPP loan
application or approved PPP loan not in compliance with the limitation set forth in this rule.” Jd.
The SBA warned that “[flailure by the applicant to do so will be regarded as a use of PPP loans
for unauthorized purposes, and the loan will be not eligible for forgiveness.” Id.

49. | The SBA also instituted another limitation for businesses that were a part of a single
corporate group, permitting them to receive no more than $4,000,000 of second-draw PPP loans

in the aggregate. Similar to the first-draw loan cap, the SBA imposed this limitation to “promote

10
Case 1:24-cv-11177-PBS Document1 Filed 05/02/24 Page 11 of 33

the availability of PPP loans to the largest possible number of borrowers[.]” The limitation defined
businesses that were part of a “single corporate group” as those that were “majority owned, directly
or indirectly, by a common parent.” The limitation was effective for any loan that had not been
fully disbursed as of January 12, 2021. See 86 Fed. Reg. 3712, 3715-16 (January 14, 2021).

50. The SBA delegated authority to third-party lenders to underwrite and approve the
PPP loans. 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 (SBA Form 2483) required the business (through
its authorized representative) to acknowledge the PPP program rules and make certain affirmative
certifications to be eligible to obtain the PPP loan.

51. The borrower’s authorized representative was required to certify, among other
things, the business’s average monthly payroll expenses and number of employees. This
information was used to calculate the amount of money the business was eligible to be loaned.
The applicant also had to submit documentation showing payroll expenses, among other things.

52. All versions of the PPP loan application required the authorized representative to
certify that the applicant had not and would not receive another loan under the Paycheck Protection
Program, section 7(a)(36) of the SBA, not including the PPP second draw loans.

53. All versions of the application further required the applicant’s representative to
“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” and acknowledge
that “knowingly making a false statement to obtain a guaranteed loan from SBA is punishable

under the law.”

11
Case 1:24-cv-11177-PBS Documenti1 Filed 05/02/24 Page 12 of 33

54. PPP loan applications were processed by participating financial institutions, which
served as the lenders. Data from the application, including information about the borrower, the
total amount of the loan, and the listed number of employees, were transmitted by the lender to the
SBA in the course of processing the loan. SBA paid processing fees to lenders.

55. | Once a borrower submitted its PPP loan application (SBA Form 2483) to a Lender,
the participating lender processed the PPP loan application. If a PPP loan application (SBA Form
2483) was approved by the participating lender, the lender submitted the application to SBA for
an SBA loan number and after receiving that number it thereafter funded the PPP loan using its
own monies, which were 100% guaranteed by the SBA.

56. A borrower was required to use PPP loan proceeds only for certain permissible
expenses: payroll costs, interest on mortgages, rent and utilities. The PPP allows the interest and
principal on the PPP loan to be entirely forgiven if the business spends the loan proceeds on these
expenses within a designated period (between eight and 24 weeks from receiving the proceeds)
and uses at least 60% of the proceeds for payroll expenses.

57. In December 2020, the Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small Businesses, Nonprofits,
and Venues Act (Pub. L. 116-260) extended and further funded the PPP loan program, and the
SBA issued implementing rules. Among other things, if a first-draw loan borrower fully repaid
the loan prior to December 27, 2020, and the loan had not been forgiven, the borrower could
reapply for a second first-draw loan pursuant to the rules then applicable. See SBA Procedural
Notice, Control No. 5000-20076 (Jan. 13, 2021). “The reapplication procedure depends on whether
the Lender reported the loan to SBA as ‘cancelled’ or ‘paid in full’ as a result of the borrower’s

repayment before December 27, 2020.” Jd. at 3.

12
Case 1:24-cv-11177-PBS Document1 Filed 05/02/24 Page 13 of 33

SPECIFIC FRAUD ALLEGATIONS

58. In the aggregate, the total value of PPP loans received by the 29 HCC entities well
exceeded the SBA’s $20,000,000.00 loan cap.

59. Each of the 29 HCC-operated entities that applied for PPP loans, were owned
entirely by Mr. Chambers, making Defendants part of a “single corporate group” that was limited
by the $20 million cap as of April 30, 2020.

60. Nonetheless, in total, the HCC entities received $30,253,955.90 in forgiven first-
draw PPP loans, a portion of which was received after the April 30, 2020, effective date, because
the Eight Entities, through false and fraudulent applications, intentionally circumvented the $20
million limit.

To Circumvent the $20 Million Cap,

HCWI Applies for and Receives a Second
First-Draw PPP Loan, which is Later Forgiven

61. On or about May 3, 2020, HCWI received a first-draw PPP Loan from Bank of
America (“BOA”), a federally-insured financial institution and SBA participating lender based in
Charlotte, North Carolina.

62. On or about May 19, 2020, HCWI’s first-draw PPP Loan was reported canceled.
Upon information and belief, HCWI had repaid its loan in order to circumvent the SBA’s $20
million cap.

63. In or before July 2020, an authorized representative of HCWI prepared or caused
to be prepared an SBA application for a second First-Draw PPP Loan (Form 2483-SD) on behalf
of HCWI to U.S. Bank, a federally-insured financial institution and SBA participating lender based

in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

13
Case 1:24-cv-11177-PBS Documenti Filed 05/02/24 Page 14 of 33

64. | Upon information and belief, an authorized representative of HCWI prepared SBA
Form 2483-SD, in which the representative falsely and fraudulently certified that HCWI was a
small business eligible for participation in the PPP Loan Program, by failing to acknowledge that
the other Defendants were part of the same single corporate group, and by omitting information
concerning those companies’ common ownership.

65. | Upon information and belief, the representative falsely and fraudulently answered
“No” to the question, “Is the Applicant or any owner of the Applicant an owner of any other
business, or have common management with, any other business?” and/or failed to provide a
complete list of this required information. Specifically, the representative falsely and fraudulently
omitted to state that the other Defendants were affiliated businesses that shared common
ownership.

66. The application required the applicant’s authorized representative to “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” and acknowledge that
“knowingly making a false statement to obtain a guaranteed loan from SBA is punishable under
the law.”

67. | Upon information and belief, Mr. Chambers and/or Mr. Duchesneau executed
HCWI’s PPP loan application as the company’s authorized representative, or caused another
person to do so.

68. | Upon information and belief, the authorized representative applied for HCWI’s
second first-draw PPP Loan from U.S. Bank rather than BOA, as the other 21 HCC entities had,

in an effort to avoid the SBA’s $20 million corporate group loan cap.

14
Case 1:24-cv-11177-PBS Document1 Filed 05/02/24 Page 15 of 33

69. Upon information and belief, Mr. Chambers and/or Mr. Duchesneau falsely
certified or caused to be certified 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” while acknowledging the federal criminal penalties attendant to “knowingly making a
false statement to obtain a guaranteed loan from SBA.”

70. In or before July 2020, Mr. Chambers and/or Mr. Duchesneau submitted or caused
to be submitted HCWI’s second first-draw PPP loan application to U.S. Bank.

71. On or about July 23, 2020, in reliance on HCWI’s materially false and fraudulent
representations and certifications in the loan application, U.S. Bank issued PPP loan # 7473168103
in the amount of $491,732.00 (the “HC WI Loan”).

72. Upon information and belief, Mr. Chambers and/or Mr. Duchesneau prepared the
PPP Loan Forgiveness Application Form, which contained a false and fraudulent certification that
HCWI had complied with the SBA’s PPP loan requirements and was therefore entitled to
forgiveness of the HCWI Loan.

73. | Onor about May 5, 2021, the HC WI Loan was forgiven in full, causing the United

States to reimburse U.S. Bank for the full amount, which cost the Government at least $495,529.26.

To Circumvent the $20 Million Cap,
HC1172 Applies for and Receives a Second
First-Draw PPP Loan, which is Later Forgiven

74, On or about May 2, 2020, HC1172 received a first-draw PPP Loan from BOA in
the amount of $2,193,292.

75. On or about May 19, 2020, BOA’s first-draw PPP Loan was reported canceled.
Upon information and belief, HC1172 had repaid its loan in order to circumvent the SBA’s $20

million loan cap.

15
Case 1:24-cv-11177-PBS Documenti1 Filed 05/02/24 Page 16 of 33

76. Inor before July 2020, an authorized representative of HC1172 prepared or caused
to be prepared an SBA application for a second first-draw PPP Loan (Form 2483-SD) on behalf
of HC1172 to U.S. Bank.

77. Upon information and belief, an authorized representative of HC1172 prepared
SBA Form 2483-SD, in which the representative falsely and fraudulently certified that HC1172
was a small business eligible for participation in the PPP Loan Program, by failing to acknowledge
that the other Defendants were part of the same single corporate group, and by omitting
information concerning those companies’ common ownership.

78. Upon information and belief, the representative falsely and fraudulently answered
“No” to the question, “Is the Applicant or any owner of the Applicant an owner of any other
business, or have common management with, any other business?” and/or failed to provide a
complete list of this required information. Specifically, the representative falsely and fraudulently
omitted to state that the other Defendants were affiliated businesses that shared common
ownership.

79. The application required the applicant’s authorized representative to “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” and acknowledge that
“knowingly making a false statement to obtain a guaranteed loan from SBA is punishable under
the law.”

80. | Upon information and belief, Mr. Chambers and/or Mr. Duchesneau executed
HC1172’s PPP loan application as the company’s authorized representative, or caused another

person to do so.

16
Case 1:24-cv-11177-PBS Document1 Filed 05/02/24 Page 17 of 33

81. | Upon information and belief, the authorized representative applied for HC1172’s
second first-draw PPP Loan from U.S. Bank rather than BOA, as the other 21 HCC entities had,
in an effort to avoid the SBA’s $20 million corporate group loan cap.

82. Upon information and belief, Mr. Chambers and/or Mr. Duchesneau falsely
certified or caused to be certified 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” while acknowledging the federal criminal penalties attendant to “knowingly making a
false statement to obtain a guaranteed loan from SBA.”

83. In or before July 2020, Mr. Chambers and/or Mr. Duchesneau submitted or caused
to be submitted HC1172’s second First-Draw PPP loan application to U.S. Bank.

84. Onor about July 23, 2020, in reliance on HC1172’s materially false and fraudulent
representations and certifications in the loan application, U.S. Bank issued PPP loan # 7465968107
in the amount of $1,850,000.00 (the “HC1172 Loan”).

85. | Upon information and belief, Mr. Chambers and/or Mr. Duchesneau prepared the
PPP Loan Forgiveness Application Form, which contained a false and fraudulent certification that
HC1172 had complied with the SBA’s PPP loan requirements and was therefore entitled to
forgiveness of the HC1172 Loan.

86. Onorabout May 5, 2021, the HC1172 Loan was forgiven in full, causing the United
States to reimburse U.S. Bank for the full amount, which cost the Government at least

$1,864,286.11.

17
Case 1:24-cv-11177-PBS Document1 Filed 05/02/24 Page 18 of 33

To Circumvent the $20 Million Cap,
DDFI Applies for and Receives a Second

First-Draw PPP Loan, which is Later Forgiven

87. On or about May 3, 2020, DDFI received a first-draw PPP Loan from BOA in the
amount of $1,283,127.

88. On or about May 19, 2020, DDFI’s first-draw PPP Loan was reported canceled.
Upon information and belief, DDFI had repaid its loan in order to circumvent the SBA’s $20
million loan cap.

89. _—_ In or before July 2020, an authorized representative of DDFI prepared or caused to
be prepared an SBA application for a second first-draw PPP Loan (Form 2483-SD) on behalf of
DDFI to U.S. Bank.

90. Upon information and belief, an authorized representative of DDFI prepared SBA
Form 2483-SD, in which the representative falsely and fraudulently certified that DDFI was a
small business eligible for participation in the PPP Loan Program, by failing to acknowledge that
the other Defendants were part of the same single corporate group, and by omitting information
concerning those companies’ common ownership.

91. Upon information and belief, the representative falsely and fraudulently answered
“No” to the question, “Is the Applicant or any owner of the Applicant an owner of any other
business, or have common management with, any other business?” and/or failed to provide a
complete list of this required information. Specifically, the representative falsely and fraudulently
omitted to state that the other Defendants were affiliated businesses that shared common
ownership.

92. The application required the applicant’s authorized representative to “certify that

the information provided in this application and the information provided in all supporting

18
Case 1:24-cv-11177-PBS Document1 Filed 05/02/24 Page 19 of 33

documents and forms is true and accurate in all material respects” and acknowledge that
“knowingly making a false statement to obtain a guaranteed loan from SBA is punishable under
the law.”

93. | Upon information and belief, Mr. Chambers and/or Mr. Duchesneau executed
DDFI’s PPP loan application as the company’s authorized representative, or caused another person
to do so.

94. Upon information and belief, the authorized representative applied for DDFI’s
second first-draw PPP Loan from U.S. Bank rather than BOA, as the other 21 HCC entities had,
in an effort to avoid the SBA’s $20 million loan limit.

95. | Upon information and belief, Mr. Chambers and/or Mr. Duchesneau falsely
certified or caused to be certified 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” while acknowledging the federal criminal penalties attendant to “knowingly making a
false statement to obtain a guaranteed loan from SBA.”

96. In or before July 2020, Mr. Chambers and/or Mr. Duchesneau submitted or caused
to be submitted DDFI’s second first-draw PPP loan application to U.S. Bank.

97. Onor about July 24, 2020, in reliance on DDFI’s materially false and fraudulent
representations and certifications in the loan application, U.S. Bank issued PPP loan # 7465968107
in the amount of $1,283,127.00 (the “DDFI Loan”).

98. Upon information and belief, Mr. Chambers and/or Mr. Duchesneau prepared the
PPP Loan Forgiveness Application Form, which contained a false and fraudulent certification that
DDFI had complied with the SBA’s PPP loan requirements and was therefore entitled to

forgiveness of the DDFI Loan.

19
Case 1:24-cv-11177-PBS Document1 Filed 05/02/24 Page 20 of 33

99. Onor about May 5, 2021, the DDFI Loan was forgiven in full, causing the United
States to reimburse U.S. Bank for the full amount, which cost the Government at least

$1,292,999.95.

To Circumvent the $20 Million Cap,
HC395 Applies for and Receives a Second
First-Draw PPP Loan, which is Later Forgiven

100. Onor about April 16, 2020, HC395 applied for and received a first-draw PPP Loan
from BOA in the amount of $339,525.00.

101. On or about May 19, 2020, HC395’s first-draw PPP Loan was reported canceled.
Upon information and belief, HC395 had repaid its loan in order to circumvent the SBA’s $20
million loan cap.

102. In or before July 2020, an authorized representative of HC395 prepared or caused
to be prepared an SBA application for a second first-draw PPP Loan (Form 2483-SD) on behalf
of HC395 to U.S. Bank.

103. Upon information and belief, an authorized representative of HC395 prepared SBA
Form 2483-SD, in which the representative falsely and fraudulently certified that HC395 was a
small business eligible for participation in the PPP Loan Program, by failing to acknowledge that
the other Defendants were part of the same single corporate group, and by omitting information
concerning those companies’ common ownership.

104. Upon information and belief, the representative falsely and fraudulently answered
“No” to the question, “Is the Applicant or any owner of the Applicant an owner of any other
business, or have common management with, any other business?” and/or failed to provide a

complete list of this required information. Specifically, the representative falsely and fraudulently

20
Case 1:24-cv-11177-PBS Documenti1 Filed 05/02/24 Page 21 of 33

omitted to state that the other Corporate Defendants were affiliated businesses that shared common
ownership.

105. The application required the applicant’s authorized representative to “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” and acknowledge that
“knowingly making a false statement to obtain a guaranteed loan from SBA is punishable under
the law.”

106. Upon information and belief, Mr. Chambers and/or Mr. Duchesneau executed
HC395’s PPP loan application as the company’s authorized representative, or caused another
person to do so.

107. Upon information and belief, the authorized representative applied for HC395’s
second first-draw PPP Loan from U.S. Bank rather than BOA, as the other 21 HCC entities had,
in an effort to avoid the SBA’s $20 million loan cap.

108. Upon information and belief, Mr. Chambers and/or Mr. Duchesneau falsely
certified or caused to be certified 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” while acknowledging the federal criminal penalties attendant to “knowingly making a
false statement to obtain a guaranteed loan from SBA.”

109. In or before July 2020, Mr. Chambers and/or Mr. Duchesneau submitted or caused
to be submitted HC395’s second first-draw PPP loan application to U.S. Bank.

110. Onor about July 20, 2020, in reliance on HC395’s materially false and fraudulent
representations and certifications in the loan application, U.S. Bank issued PPP loan # 5922858106

in the amount of $335,475.00 (the “HC395 Loan”).

21
Case 1:24-cv-11177-PBS Documenti1 Filed 05/02/24 Page 22 of 33

111. Upon information and belief, Mr. Chambers and/or Mr. Duchesneau prepared the
PPP Loan Forgiveness Application Form, which contained a false and fraudulent certification that
HC395 had complied with the SBA’s PPP loan requirements and was therefore entitled to
forgiveness of the HC395 Loan.

112. Onor about May 5, 2021, the HC395 Loan was forgiven in full, causing the United

States to reimburse U.S. Bank for the full amount, which cost the Government at least $338,093.57.

To Circumvent the $20 Million Cap,
HCCSI Applies for and Receives a Second

First-Draw PPP Loan, which is Later Forgiven

113. On or about May 3, 2020, HCCSI applied for and received a first-draw PPP Loan
from BOA for an amount of $1,378,347.00.

114. On or about May 19, 2020, HCCSI’s first-draw PPP Loan was reported canceled.
Upon information and belief, HCCSI had repaid its loan in order to circumvent the SBA’s $20
million loan cap.

115. In or before July 2020, an authorized representative of HCCSI prepared or caused
to be prepared an SBA application for a second first-draw PPP Loan (Form 2483-SD) on behalf
of HCCSI to U.S. Bank.

116. Upon information and belief, an authorized representative of HCCSI prepared SBA
Form 2483-SD, in which the representative falsely and fraudulently certified that HCCSI was a
small business eligible for participation in the PPP Loan Program, by failing to acknowledge that
the other Defendants were part of the same single corporate group, and by omitting information
concerning those companies’ common ownership.

117. Upon information and belief, the representative falsely and fraudulently answered

“No” to the question, “Is the Applicant or any owner of the Applicant an owner of any other

22
Case 1:24-cv-11177-PBS Document1 Filed 05/02/24 Page 23 of 33

business, or have common management with, any other business?” and/or failed to provide a
complete list of this required information. Specifically, the representative falsely and fraudulently
omitted to state that the other Defendants were affiliated businesses that shared common
ownership.

118. The application required the applicant’s authorized representative to “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” and acknowledge that
“knowingly making a false statement to obtain a guaranteed loan from SBA is punishable under
the law.”

119. Upon information and belief, Mr. Chambers and/or Mr. Duchesneau executed
HCCSI’s PPP loan application as the company’s authorized representative, or caused another
person to do so.

120. Upon information and belief, the authorized representative applied for HCCSI’s
second first-draw PPP Loan from U.S. Bank rather than BOA, as the other 21 HCC entities had,
in an effort to avoid the SBA’s $20 million loan cap.

121. Upon information and belief, Mr. Chambers and/or Mr. Duchesneau falsely
certified or caused to be certified 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” while acknowledging the federal criminal penalties attendant to “knowingly making a
false statement to obtain a guaranteed loan from SBA.”

122. Inor before July 2020, Mr. Chambers and/or Mr. Duchesneau submitted or caused

to be submitted HCCSI’s second first-draw PPP loan application to U.S. Bank.

23
Case 1:24-cv-11177-PBS Document1 Filed 05/02/24 Page 24 of 33

123. Onor about July 20, 2020, in reliance on HCCSI’s materially false and fraudulent
representations and certifications in the loan application, U.S. Bank issued PPP loan # 7462878109
in the amount of $1,378,342.00 (the “HCCSI Loan”).

124. Upon information and belief, Mr. Chambers and/or Mr. Duchesneau prepared the
PPP Loan Forgiveness Application Form, which contained a false and fraudulent certification that
HCCSI had complied with the SBA’s PPP loan requirements and was therefore entitled to
forgiveness of the HCCSI Loan.

125. Onor about May 5, 2021, the HCCSI Loan was forgiven in full, causing the United
States to reimburse U.S. Bank for the full amount, which cost the Government at least

$1,388,985.86.

To Circumvent the $20 Million Cap,
HC1168 Applies for and Receives a Second
First-Draw PPP Loan, which is Later Forgiven

126. On or about May 3, 2020, HC1168 applied for and received a first-draw PPP Loan
from BOA for an amount of $718,867.00.

127. Onor about May 19, 2020, HC1168’s First-draw PPP Loan was reported canceled.
Upon information and belief, HC1168 had repaid its loan in order to circumvent the SBA’s $20
million loan cap

128. In or before July 2020, an authorized representative of HC1168 prepared or caused
to be prepared an SBA application for a second first-draw PPP Loan (Form 2483-SD) on behalf
of HC1168 to U.S. Bank.

129. Upon information and belief, an authorized representative of HC1168 prepared
SBA Form 2483-SD, in which the representative falsely and fraudulently certified that HC1168

was a small business eligible for participation in the PPP Loan Program, by failing to acknowledge

24
Case 1:24-cv-11177-PBS Documenti Filed 05/02/24 Page 25 of 33

that the other Defendants were part of the same single corporate group, and by omitting
information concerning those companies’ common ownership.

130. Upon information and belief, the representative falsely and fraudulently answered
“No” to the question, “Is the Applicant or any owner of the Applicant an owner of any other
business, or have common management with, any other business?” and/or failed to provide a
complete list of this required information. Specifically, the representative falsely and fraudulently
omitted to state that the other Defendants were affiliated businesses that shared common
ownership.

131. The application required the applicant’s authorized representative to “certify that
the information provided in this application and the information provided in ail supporting
documents and forms is true and accurate in all material respects” and acknowledge that
“knowingly making a false statement to obtain a guaranteed loan from SBA is punishable under
the law.”

132. Upon information and belief, Mr. Chambers and/or Mr. Duchesneau executed
HC1168’s PPP loan application as the company’s authorized representative, or caused another
person to do so.

133. Upon information and belief, the authorized representative applied for HC1168’s
second first-draw PPP Loan from U.S. Bank rather than BOA, as the other 21 HCC entities had,
in an effort to avoid the SBA’s $20 million loan cap.

134. Upon information and belief, Mr. Chambers and/or Mr. Duchesneau falsely
certified or caused to be certified that “the information provided in this application and the

information provided in all supporting documents and forms is true and accurate in all material

25
Case 1:24-cv-11177-PBS Document1 Filed 05/02/24 Page 26 of 33

respects” while acknowledging the federal criminal penalties attendant to “knowingly making a
false statement to obtain a guaranteed loan from SBA.”

135. In or before July 2020, Mr. Chambers and/or Mr. Duchesneau submitted or caused
to be submitted HC1168’s second first-draw PPP loan application to U.S. Bank.

136. Onor about July 23, 2020, in reliance on HC1168’s materially false and fraudulent
representations and certifications in the loan application, U.S. Bank issued PPP loan # 7423138107
in the amount of $718,865.00(the “HC1168 Loan”).

137. Upon information and belief, Mr. Chambers and/or Mr. Duchesneau prepared the
PPP Loan Forgiveness Application Form, which contained a false and fraudulent certification that
HC1168 had complied with the SBA’s PPP loan requirements and was therefore entitled to
forgiveness of the HC1168 Loan.

138. On or about April 29, 2021, the HC1168 Loan was forgiven in full, causing the
United States to reimburse U.S. Bank for the full amount, which cost the Government at least

$724,296.42.

To Circumvent the $20 Million Cap,
JRMC Applies for and Receives a Second
First-Draw PPP Loan, which is Later Forgiven

139. On or about May 3, 2020, JRMC applied for and received a first-draw PPP Loan
from BOA for an amount of $950,292.00.

140. However, on or about May 19, 2020, JRMC’s First-draw PPP Loan was reported
canceled. Upon information and belief, HC1172 had repaid its loan in order to circumvent the

SBA’s $20 million loan cap.

26
Case 1:24-cv-11177-PBS Document1 Filed 05/02/24 Page 27 of 33

141. In or before July 2020, an authorized representative of JRMC prepared or caused
to be prepared an SBA application for a second first-draw PPP Loan (Form 2483-SD) on behalf
of JRMC to U.S. Bank.

142. Upon information and belief, an authorized representative of JRMC prepared SBA
Form 2483-SD, in which the representative falsely and fraudulently certified that JRMC was a
small business eligible for participation in the PPP Loan Program, by failing to acknowledge that
the other Defendants were part of the same single corporate group, and by omitting information
concerning those companies’ common ownership.

143. Upon information and belief, the representative falsely and fraudulently answered
“No” to the question, “Is the Applicant or any owner of the Applicant an owner of any other
business, or have common management with, any other business?” and/or failed to provide a
complete list of this required information. Specifically, the representative falsely and fraudulently
omitted to state that the other Defendants were affiliated businesses that shared common
ownership.

144, The application required the applicant’s authorized representative to “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” and acknowledge that
“knowingly making a false statement to obtain a guaranteed loan from SBA is punishable under
the law.”

145. Upon information and belief, Mr. Chambers and/or Mr. Duchesneau executed
JRMC’s PPP loan application as the company’s authorized representative, or caused another

person to do so.

27
Case 1:24-cv-11177-PBS Documenti1 Filed 05/02/24 Page 28 of 33

146. Upon information and belief, the authorized representative applied for JRMC’s
second first-draw PPP Loan from U.S. Bank rather than BOA, as the other 21 HCC entities had,
in an effort to avoid the SBA’s $20 million corporate group loan cap.

147. Upon information and belief, Mr. Chambers and/or Mr. Duchesneau falsely
certified or caused to be certified 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” while acknowledging the federal criminal penalties attendant to “knowingly making a
false statement to obtain a guaranteed loan from SBA.”

148. In or before July 2020, Mr. Chambers and/or Mr. Duchesneau submitted or caused
to be submitted JRMC’s second first-draw PPP loan application to U.S. Bank.

149. On or about July 22, 2020, in reliance on JRMC’s materially false and fraudulent
representations and certifications in the loan application, U.S. Bank issued PPP loan # 6994078101
in the amount of $950,290.00 (the “JRMC Loan”).

150. Upon information and belief, Mr. Chambers and/or Mr. Duchesneau prepared the
PPP Loan Forgiveness Application Form, which contained a false and fraudulent certification that
JRMC had complied with the SBA’s PPP loan requirements and was therefore entitled to
forgiveness of the JRMC Loan.

151. Onor about June 11, 2021, the JRMC Loan was forgiven in full, causing the United

States to reimburse U.S. Bank for the full amount, which cost the Government at least $958,631.43.

To Circumvent the $20 Million Cap,
HCM Applies for and Receives a Second
First-Draw PPP Loan, which is Later Forgiven

152. On or about May 3, 2020, HCM applied for and received a first-draw PPP Loan

from BOA for an amount of $591,997.00.

28
Case 1:24-cv-11177-PBS Documenti1 Filed 05/02/24 Page 29 of 33

153. On or about May 19, 2020, HCM’s first-draw PPP Loan was reported canceled.
Upon information and belief, HC1172 had repaid its loan in order to circumvent the SBA’s $20
million loan cap

154. In or before July 2020, an authorized representative of HCM prepared or caused to
be prepared an SBA application for a second first-draw PPP Loan (Form 2483-SD) on behalf of
HCM to U.S. Bank.

155. Upon information and belief, an authorized representative of HCM prepared SBA
Form 2483-SD, in which the representative falsely and fraudulently certified that HCM was a
small business eligible for participation in the PPP Loan Program, by failing to acknowledge that
the other Defendants were part of the same single corporate group, and by omitting information
concerning those companies’ common ownership.

156. Upon information and belief, the representative falsely and fraudulently answered
“No” to the question, “Is the Applicant or any owner of the Applicant an owner of any other
business, or have common management with, any other business?” and/or failed to provide a
complete list of this required information. Specifically, the representative falsely and fraudulently
omitted to state that the other Defendants were affiliated businesses that shared common
ownership.

157. The application required the applicant’s authorized representative to “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” and acknowledge that
“knowingly making a false statement to obtain a guaranteed loan from SBA is punishable under

the law.”

29
Case 1:24-cv-11177-PBS Document1 Filed 05/02/24 Page 30 of 33

158. Upon information and belief, Mr. Chambers and/or Mr. Duchesneau executed
HCM’s PPP loan application as the company’s authorized representative, or caused another person
to do so.

159. Upon information and belief, the authorized representative applied for HCM’s
second first-draw PPP Loan from U.S. Bank rather than BOA, as the other 21 HCC entities had,
in an effort to avoid the SBA’s $20 million loan cap.

160. Upon information and belief, Mr. Chambers and/or Mr. Duchesneau falsely
certified or caused to be certified 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” while acknowledging the federal criminal penalties attendant to “knowingly making a
false statement to obtain a guaranteed loan from SBA.”

161. In or before July 2020, Mr. Chambers and/or Mr. Duchesneau submitted or caused
to be submitted HCM’s second first-draw PPP loan application to U.S. Bank.

162. On or about July 23, 2020, in reliance on HCM’s materially false and fraudulent
representations and certifications in the loan application, U.S. Bank issued PPP loan # 7469908108
in the amount of $591,997.00 (the “HCM Loan”).

163. Upon information and belief, Mr. Chambers and/or Mr. Duchesneau prepared the
PPP Loan Forgiveness Application Form, which contained a false and fraudulent certification that
HCM had complied with the SBA’s PPP loan requirements and was therefore entitled to
forgiveness of the HCM Loan.

164. On or about May 5, 2021, the HCM Loan was forgiven in full, causing the United

States to reimburse U.S. Bank for the full amount, which cost the Government at least $596,568.53.

30
Case 1:24-cv-11177-PBS Documenti1 Filed 05/02/24 Page 31 of 33

THE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN DAMAGED AS A RESULT OF
DEFENDANTS’ CONDUCT

165. Defendants’ materially false statements have caused the federal government to be

defrauded of taxpayer funds in the approximate amount of $7,659,391.13.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT I
False Claims Act:
Presenting or Causing to be Presented False and Fraudulent Claims
U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A)

166. Relator repeats the allegations contained in the above paragraphs as if fully set forth
herein.

167. As more particularly set forth in the foregoing paragraphs, by virtue of the acts
alleged herein, the Defendants have knowingly presented, and caused to be presented, false or
fraudulent claims for payment or approval in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A).

COUNT II

False Claims Act:
Making or Using False
Records or Statement to Cause Claims to be Paid
31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(B)

168. Relator repeats the allegations contained in the above paragraphs as if fully set
forth herein.

169. As more particularly set forth in the foregoing paragraphs, by virtue of the acts
alleged herein, the Defendants have knowingly made, used, or caused to be made or used, false
records or statements — i.e., the false representations made or caused to be made by Defendants —

material to false or fraudulent claims in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(B).

31
Case 1:24-cv-11177-PBS Document1 Filed 05/02/24 Page 32 of 33

COUNT It

False Claims Act: Conspiracy
31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(C)

170. Relator repeats the allegations contained in the above paragraphs as if fully set
forth herein.

171. As more particularly set forth in the foregoing paragraphs, by virtue of the acts
alleged herein, the Defendants conspired with and among each other, and with others, to make or
present false or fraudulent claims, and performed one or more overt acts to effect the submission
and cause the payment of false or fraudulent claims.

DEMANDS FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Relator, on behalf of the United States Government, demands judgment
against the Defendants, ordering that:

A. That Defendants be ordered to cease and desist from submitting any more false
claims, or further violating 31 U.S.C. § 3729, et seq.;

B. That judgment be entered in Relator’s favor and against Defendants in the amount
of each and every false or fraudulent claim, multiplied as provided for in 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a), plus
a civil penalty of not less than $13,946.00 and up to $27,894.00 per claim as provided by 31 U.S.C.
§ 3729(a), 20 CFR Part 356 and 28 CFR Part 85 (see 88 FR 5776, Feb. 12, 2024), to the extent
such multiplied penalties shall fairly compensate the United States of America for losses resulting
from the various schemes undertaken by Defendants, together with penalties for specific claims to
be identified at trial after full discovery;

C. That Defendants be ordered to disgorge all sums by which they have been enriched

unjustly by their wrongful conduct;

32
Case 1:24-cv-11177-PBS Documenti1 Filed 05/02/24 Page 33 of 33

D. That judgment be granted for Relator against Defendants for all costs, including,
but not limited to, court costs, expert fees and all attorneys’ fees incurred by Relator in the
prosecution of this suit; and

E. That Relator be granted such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
proper.

TRIAL BY JURY

Relator hereby demands a trial by jury as to all issues.

DATED: May 2, 2024
NYSTROM BECKMAN & PARIS LLP

/s/ Christine M. Kingston
William C. Nystrom (#559656)

Christine M. Kingston (#682962)
One Marina Park Drive, 15" Floor
Boston, MA 02210

(617) 778-9100
wnystrom@nbparis.com

ckingston@nbparis.com

SPIRO HARRISON & NELSON

Eric H. Jaso (pro hac vice pending)
363 Bloomfield Avenue

Second Floor

Montclair, NJ 07074

(973) 232-0881

ejaso(@spiroharrison.com

Attorneys for Relator

33


File and source

File

1.pdf

Size

1,571,876 bytes

SHA-256

545a38a1aabebdb04e6b542a0821accfef4550b0e5b3c8d35b7f3540f830bfec

Our copy

1.pdf

Original

archive.org