Qui Tam Complaint — United States ex rel. Aidan Forsyth v. EuWe Eugen Wexler US Plastics Inc. (Dkt. 1, D.S.C.)

Summary

A qui tam complaint filed February 14, 2025 as Entry Number 1 in 8:25-cv-00878-DCC in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Anderson Division, by relator Aidan Forsyth on behalf of the United States against EuWe Eugen Wexler US Plastics Inc. (EW USA) under the False Claims Act. The complaint alleges that EW USA, a subsidiary of the German company EuWe Eugen Wexler Holding GmbH & Co. KG, which reported an average of 1,038 employees in 2020, reported 166 employees and omitted its affiliates to obtain a second-draw PPP loan of $1,627,947.00 from Itria Ventures LLC on or about May 18, 2021. It states the loan was forgiven in the amount of $1,638,754.76 on or about November 9, 2021 and puts the cost to the Government at approximately $1.67 million. It brings two False Claims Act counts and seeks treble damages and civil penalties.

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

Full text

8:25-cv-00878-DCC Date Filed 02/14/25 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Civil Action No. ____________

ex rel. [UNDER SEAL],
QUI TAM COMPLAINT
Plaintiff,
v. FILED IN CAMERA AND UNDER SEAL
UNDER 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2)
[UNDER SEAL],
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendant.
DO NOT PLACE ON PACER
DO NOT PLACE IN PRESS BOX

SHN\890345.1
8:25-cv-00878-DCC Date Filed 02/14/25 Entry Number 1 Page 2 of 18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Civil Action No. ____________
ex rel. AIDAN FORSYTH,

Plaintiff-Relator, QUI TAM COMPLAINT
v.
FILED IN CAMERA AND UNDER SEAL
EUWE EUGEN WEXLER US PLASTICS UNDER 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2)
INC.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendant.

On behalf of the United States of America (the “United States” or the “Government”),

Plaintiff and Relator Aidan Forsyth (“Relator”) files this qui tam action against Defendant EuWe

Eugen Wexler US Plastics Inc. (“EW USA”) 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 Defendant’s materially false and

fraudulent applications to the Government for loans under the Small Business Administration’s

(“SBA”) 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

Defendant submitted or caused to be submitted to the Federal Government-funded and/or

subsidized PPP loan program.

SHN\890345.1
8:25-cv-00878-DCC Date Filed 02/14/25 Entry Number 1 Page 3 of 18

SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS

3. The Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) was established to provide small

businesses with the resources necessary to maintain their payroll and cover related overhead during

the COVID-19 crisis. The SBA provided guidance for the implementation of the PPP, including

size eligibility requirements.

4. A business concern was “small” for the purpose of qualifying for a PPP loan

depending on its size when compared to a size standard, which was typically stated in terms of

either receipts or employees. The business’s designated representative was required to certify that

the business had no more than 500 employees or, if it did have more than 500 employees, that it

had a tangible net worth and historic net income that would satisfy the SBA’s alternative size

standard.

5. The SBA specified that, for purposes of this headcount limit, foreign companies

with U.S. entities and/or operations were required to report all employees of all affiliates, both

foreign and domestic.

6. At all times relevant to this action, EW USA, along with its parent company EuWe

Eugen Wexler Holding GmbH & Co. KG (“EW”) and multiple sister companies in Europe and

elsewhere, constituted a multinational plastics manufacturing company headquartered in

Germany, with over 1,000 employees and over €110 million in consolidated revenues. EW USA

had its principal place of business in Williamston, South Carolina.

7. Defendant, along with its parent, far exceeded the size and revenue limitations of

businesses eligible to participate in SBA programs, including the PPP loan program. Nor did

Defendant qualify under any SBA exceptions. Accordingly, Defendant was not eligible to receive

second-draw PPP loans or forgiveness thereof.

SHN\890345.1
8:25-cv-00878-DCC Date Filed 02/14/25 Entry Number 1 Page 4 of 18

8. Nonetheless, from in or about January through March 2021, Defendant applied to

a New York City lender for a second-draw PPP loan.

9. Upon information and belief, a representative of the Defendant prepared or caused

to be prepared the loan application as its designated authorized representative.

10. The application required the borrower’s designated representative to certify that the

Defendant was an eligible business under SBA rules. The application 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.

11. Upon information and relief, in Defendant’s application, the representative falsely

and fraudulently certified that the borrower was an eligible “small business concern” under SBA

rules. The representative also was required to expressly acknowledge that this was a material

question and that submitting a materially false application would violate federal law.

12. In reliance on these materially false statements and certifications, the lender

extended Defendant a second-draw loan in the amount of $1,627,947.00.

13. By submitting applications with additional material false and fraudulent statements

and certifications, Defendant later sought and obtained forgiveness of the entirety of this loans,

along with fees and accrued interest.

14. Relator files this qui tam lawsuit to enable the Government to recover from

Defendant the SBA-guaranteed monies that were provided to Defendant as the result of its

wrongdoing, and bank fees and costs paid by the Government. Relator further seeks to recover

treble damages and/or penalties as provided by the FCA.

SHN\890345.1
8:25-cv-00878-DCC Date Filed 02/14/25 Entry Number 1 Page 5 of 18

JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

15. 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.

16. 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 Defendant

pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3732(a) because the Defendant did business and submitted its PPP Loan

application and/or request for loan forgiveness to a lender in this District.

17. Venue is proper in this District under 31 U.S.C. § 3732(a) because Defendant

transacted business in this District and because the wrongdoing alleged herein took place within

this and/or affected this District.

18. In accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2), this Complaint has been filed in camera

and will remain under seal for a period of at least 60 days, and shall not be served on the Defendant

until the Court so orders.

19. 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 Adair

F. Boroughs, United States Attorney for the District of South Carolina, and upon the Honorable

Pamela J. Bondi, Attorney General of the United States.

20. 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

SHN\890345.1
8:25-cv-00878-DCC Date Filed 02/14/25 Entry Number 1 Page 6 of 18

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/AFFILIATES

21. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff/Relator Aidan Forsyth resided at 55

West 8th Street, New York, NY 10011.

22. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant EuWe Eugen Wexler US Plastics Inc.

(“EW USA”) was a corporation registered to do business in the State of South Carolina. Its

principal place of business was located at 171 Alliance Pkwy, Williamston, SC 29697.

23. At all times relevant to this action, non-Defendant EuWe Eugen Wexler Holding

GmbH & Co. KG (“EW”) was a limited partnership that was formed in Germany on or about

March 11, 1980. Its principal place of business was located at: L Industriestr. 28 91207, Lauf

a.d.Pegnitz, Bayern Germany.

24. Defendant EW USA was a subsidiary of EW. EW owned several other subsidiaries

in Europe and elsewhere.

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

25. 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

recover losses sustained as a result of fraud against the United States. Further clarifying

amendments were adopted in May 2009 and March 2010.

26. 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

SHN\890345.1
8:25-cv-00878-DCC Date Filed 02/14/25 Entry Number 1 Page 7 of 18

“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).

27. 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).

28. 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

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).

SHN\890345.1
8:25-cv-00878-DCC Date Filed 02/14/25 Entry Number 1 Page 8 of 18

29. 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).

30. In this action, and under well-established precedent, the false and fraudulent nature

of Defendant’s 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

31. 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 Small 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.

32. 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

$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.

SHN\890345.1
8:25-cv-00878-DCC Date Filed 02/14/25 Entry Number 1 Page 9 of 18

33. 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.

34. The SBA used size standards to determine if a business was a “small business

concern” and therefore eligible to apply for an SBA-guaranteed PPP loan. To be deemed eligible,

a business had to have fewer than 500 employees or meet the SBA industry size standard, if more

than 500. The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, Section 1116 established an alternative size

standard of not more than $15 million in tangible net worth and of not more than $5 million in the

average net income after federal income taxes (excluding any carry-over losses) of the applicant

for the two full fiscal years before the date of the application.

35. The SBA also considered whether a business had “affiliates” subject to mutual

equity/stock ownership, overlapping management and/or control. See id. Subpart A, § 121.103.

Businesses which are “affiliates” of each other under the SBA’s definitions “may be treated as one

party with such interests aggregated,” including aggregating the businesses’ annual receipts and

number of employees. See id. §§ 121.103, 121.104 & 121.106. For purposes of the size standard,

the size of the applicant combined with its affiliates must not exceed the size standard designated

for either the primary industry of the applicant alone or the primary industry of the applicant and

its affiliates, whichever is higher. 13 C.F.R. §121.301.

36. Early in the Paycheck Protection Program, the SBA clarified that businesses

comprising both U.S. and foreign entities “must count all of its employees and the employees of

its U.S. and foreign affiliates absent a waiver of or an exception to the affiliation rules. 13 C.F.R.

121.301(f)(6).” Paycheck Protection Program FAQs (updated May 5, 2020). See also 85 Fed. Reg.

SHN\890345.1
8:25-cv-00878-DCC Date Filed 02/14/25 Entry Number 1 Page 10 of 18

30835, 30846 (May 21, 2020) (“SBA’s affiliation rules provide that in determining an entity’s

number of employees, employees of the entity ‘and all of its domestic and foreign affiliates’ are

included. As a result, in most cases, a borrower is considered together with its U.S. and foreign

affiliates for purposes of determining eligibility for the PPP.”)

37. 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 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.

38. Specifically with regard to these eligibility criteria, the loan application asked, “Is

the Applicant or any owner[1] of the Applicant an owner of any other business, or have common

management with, any other business?” If the answer was yes, the applicant was required to “list

all such businesses and describe the relationship on a separate sheet[.]”

39. In December 2020, the Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small Businesses, Nonprofits,

and Venues Act (the Economic Aid Act) was enacted, authorizing the SBA to guarantee “Paycheck

Protection Program Second Draw Loans . . . under generally the same terms and conditions

available under the Paycheck Protection Program[.]” See 86 Fed. Reg. 3712-3723 (Jan. 14, 2021).

40. The second-draw PPP loan application (SBA Form 2483-SD) required the

borrower’s authorized representative to state the total number of employees “(including affiliates,

if applicable; may not exceed 300 unless ‘per location’ exception applies),” and to indicate if “the

Applicant or any owner of the Applicant an owner of any other business, or have common

1
Defined by the SBA as an individual with a 20% or greater equity interest in the business.
9

SHN\890345.1
8:25-cv-00878-DCC Date Filed 02/14/25 Entry Number 1 Page 11 of 18

management with, any other business” and if so, to “list all such businesses and describe the

relationship on a separate sheet[.]”

41. The borrower’s authorized representative was required to certify, among other

things, that:

• 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) and the Department of the Treasury
(Treasury) implementing Second Draw Paycheck Protection Program
Loans under Division A, Title I of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act (CARES Act) and the Economic Aid to Hard-Hit
Small Businesses, Nonprofits and Venues Act (the Paycheck Protection
Program Rules).
• The Applicant, together with its affiliates (if applicable), (1) is an
independent contractor, self-employed individual, or sole proprietor with
no employees or (2) employs no more than 300 employees; or (3) if
NAICS 72, employs no more than 300 employees per physical location;
(4) if a news organization that is majority owned or controlled by a
NAICS code 511110 or 5151 business or a nonprofit public broadcasting
entity with a trade or business under NAICS code 511110 or 5151,
employs no more than 300 employees per location.
***
• All loan proceeds will be used only for business-related purposes as
specified in the loan application and consistent with the Paycheck
Protection Program Rules including the prohibition on using loan proceeds
for lobbying activities and expenditures. . . .
42. Besides the total number of employees, the borrower’s authorized representative

was also required to certify, among other things, the business’s average monthly payroll expenses.

This information was used to calculate the amount of money the business was eligible to be loaned.

SHN\890345.1
8:25-cv-00878-DCC Date Filed 02/14/25 Entry Number 1 Page 12 of 18

The applicant was also required to submit documentation showing payroll expenses, among other

things.

43. The applicant’s authorized representative was finally required to acknowledge and

certify in good faith by initialing the following certification:

[T] he 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 guaranteed loan
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 fine of up to $250,000; under
15 U.S.C. 645 by imprisonment of not more than two years and/or a fine 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 fine of not
more than $1,000,000.
44. 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.

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

lender processed the PPP loan application. If a PPP loan application 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.

46. A borrower was required to use PPP loan proceeds only for certain permissible

expenses: payroll costs, interest on mortgages, rent and utilities. The SBA made clear that “[u]nder

no circumstances may PPP funds be used to support non-U.S. workers or operations.” 85 Fed. Reg.

at 30837.

SHN\890345.1
8:25-cv-00878-DCC Date Filed 02/14/25 Entry Number 1 Page 13 of 18

47. The PPP allowed 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.

SPECIFIC FRAUD ALLEGATIONS

Defendant and its Parent and Affiliates in the Aggregate Were Too
Large to be Eligible for a Second-Draw PPP Loan
48. In the aggregate, Defendant, its Parent and affiliates employed far too large a

headcount to be eligible to receive a second-draw PPP loan.

49. Defendant EW USA reported to the IRS that at the end of 2020, 123 active

participants participated in its employee benefit plan.

50. Defendant EW USA’s parent company, EW, reported in its Consolidated Financial

Statements for the Financial Year from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020 that “an average of

1,038 employees were employed.”

51. EW USA reported to the IRS that at the end of 2021, 136 active participants

participated in its employee benefit plan.

52. EW reported in its Consolidated Financial Statements for the Financial Year from

January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021 that “an average of 1,016 employees were employed.”

SHN\890345.1
8:25-cv-00878-DCC Date Filed 02/14/25 Entry Number 1 Page 14 of 18

Despite being Ineligible under SBA Regulations, Defendant Applied for and Received A
Second-Draw PPP Loan, Which was Later Forgiven

53. In or about May 2021, EW USA was approved for a second-draw PPP Loan in the

amount of $1,627,947.00, based on a reported headcount of 166 employees.

54. Upon information and belief, in or about May 2021, an authorized representative

of the Defendant prepared SBA Form 2483-SD, in which the representative falsely and

fraudulently certified that Defendant was a small business concern eligible for participation in the

PPP Loan Program, by failing to disclose its total number of employees, and failing to

acknowledge that it had numerous foreign and domestic affiliates, by omitting information

concerning those companies’ common ownership.

55. Upon information and belief, the representative falsely and fraudulently indicated

166 as the “Number of Employees (including affiliates, if applicable; may not exceed 300 unless

‘per location’ exception applies)”.

56. 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 that Defendant’s foreign and domestic affiliated entities were affiliated businesses that

shared common ownership.

57. Upon information and belief, the representative further falsely and fraudulently

certified that Defendant “together with its affiliates (if applicable) . . . employ[ed] no more than

300 employees[.]”

58. Upon information and belief, the authorized representative further falsely certified

“that the information provided in this application and the information provided in all supporting
13

SHN\890345.1
8:25-cv-00878-DCC Date Filed 02/14/25 Entry Number 1 Page 15 of 18

documents and forms is true and accurate in all material respects” and acknowledged the federal

criminal penalties attendant to “knowingly making a false statement to obtain a guaranteed loan

from SBA.”

59. The representative prepared SBA Form 2483-SD using NAICS Code 326199 which

did not provide for a “per-location” exception to the employee headcount limit.

60. The authorized representative executed, dated, and submitted the Form 2483-SD to

Itria Ventures LLC (“Itria”) based in New York, NY. Itria is a subsidiary of Biz2Credit which is

an SBA participating lender.

61. On or about May 18, 2021, in reliance on EW USA’s materially false and fraudulent

representations and certifications in the loan application, Itria issued PPP loan #2797059007 in the

amount of $1,627,947.00 (the “EW USA Loan”). The SBA also paid Itria a lender fee of

$48,838.41.

62. Upon information and belief, an authorized representative for the Defendant

prepared or caused to be prepared the PPP Loan Forgiveness Application Form, which contained

a false and fraudulent certification that the Defendant had complied with the SBA’s PPP loan

requirements and was therefore entitled to forgiveness of the loans.

63. On or about November 9, 2021, the EW USA Loan was forgiven in the amount of

$1,638,754.76, causing the United States to reimburse Itria for that amount (including interest),

which (including the lender fee) cost the Government more than $1.2 million.

THE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN DAMAGED AS A RESULT OF
DEFENDANT’S CONDUCT

64. Upon information and belief, the Defendant’s loan (including accrued interest)

were forgiven in full. These reimbursements, plus lender fees and costs cost the Government at

SHN\890345.1
8:25-cv-00878-DCC Date Filed 02/14/25 Entry Number 1 Page 16 of 18

least $1.67 million. Accordingly, Defendant’s materially false statements have caused the Federal

Government to be defrauded of taxpayer funds in the approximate amount of $1.67 million.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I
False Claims Act:
Presenting or Causing to Be Presented False and Fraudulent Claims
31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A)

65. Relator repeats, realleges, and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 64 of the

Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

66. As more particularly set forth in the foregoing paragraphs, by virtue of the acts

alleged herein, the Defendant has 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).

67. As a result thereof, the United States has been damaged in an amount equal to or

greater than the amount paid by the United States for such false or fraudulent claims.

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

68. Relator repeats, realleges, and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 64 of the

Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

69. As more particularly set forth in the foregoing paragraphs, by virtue of the acts

alleged herein, the Defendant has knowingly made, used, or caused to be made or used, false

SHN\890345.1
8:25-cv-00878-DCC Date Filed 02/14/25 Entry Number 1 Page 17 of 18

records or statements – i.e., the false representations made or caused to be made by Defendant –

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

70. As a result thereof, the United States has been damaged in an amount equal to or

greater than the amount paid by the United States for such false or fraudulent claims.

DEMANDS FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Relator, on behalf of the United States Government, demands judgment

against Defendant, ordering:

A. That Defendant 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 Defendant 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 Defendant, together with penalties for specific claims to

be identified at trial after full discovery;

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

unjustly by their wrongful conduct;

D. That judgment be granted for Relator against Defendant 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.

SHN\890345.1
8:25-cv-00878-DCC Date Filed 02/14/25 Entry Number 1 Page 18 of 18

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

ELLIS HINTON, LLC

s/Sloan P. Ellis
___________________________
Sloan P. Ellis (Bar No. 10436)
Brandi B. Hinton (Bar No. 13186)
21 Augusta Street, Suite C
Greenville, SC 29601
(864) 775-5775
sloan@ellishinton.com
brandi@ellishinton.com

SPIRO HARRISON & NELSON
Eric H. Jaso (pro hac vice admission pending)
363 Bloomfield Avenue
Suite 2C
Montclair, New Jersey 07042
(973) 744-2100
ejaso@shnlegal.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Relator

February 14, 2025
Greenville, South Carolina

SHN\890345.1

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.scd.300264.1.0.pdf
Size: 222,573 bytes
SHA-256: 19eebe3800ad27414a39acfd57e8fca2c418b5ea21d7b871cc9bc5b7eed55a2a
Our copy: gov.uscourts.scd.300264.1.0.pdf
Original: archive.org