United States ex rel. Saites v. Spyropoulos, S.D.N.Y. No. 22 Civ. 7001, proposed stipulation and order of settlement and dismissal

Summary

This proposed Stipulation and Order of Settlement and Dismissal in United States ex rel. George Saites v. Christos Spyropoulos, 22 Civ. 7001 (ER), in the Southern District of New York, resolves False Claims Act claims over PPP loans to restaurant companies including Limani 51, LLC and Estiatorio Limani LLC and to BC International Group, Inc. and BCI Services LLC. The Defendants admit, acknowledge and accept responsibility for conduct including inflating payrolls by including wages of six family members and an acquaintance described as no show employees, which inflated payrolls by approximately $250,000.00. The stipulation also describes thirteen individuals listed as full time employees of both BC International and BCI Services, resulting in $481,240.42 in improper payments. Defendants agree to pay $4,646,700.21 plus interest, of which $2,358,782.39 is restitution.

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

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors. Pages 27 and 29 of 36 are not shown because the text could not be recognized reliably.

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. GEORGE
SAITES,

Plaintiff and Relator,

-against-

CHRISTOS SPYROPOULOS, JOHN GEORGIADES
a/k/a IOANNIS GEORGIADES, FRANCO SUKAJ,
ESTIATORIO LIMANI LLC, LIMANI 51, LLC, LML,
LLC d/b/a PRIME 1024, and ONIRO TAVERNA LLC,

Defendants.

22 Civ. 7001 (ER)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

-against-

CHRISTOS SPYROPOULOS, IOANNIS GEORGIADES,
GALATIA ASPROU, ARISTOTELIS SPYROPOULOS,
IORDANIS SPYROPOULOS, LIMANI 51, LLC,
ESTIATORIO LIMANI LLC, LML HOSPITALITY LLC,
ONIRO TAVERNA LLC, BC INTERNATIONAL
GROUP, INC., and BCI SERVICES LLC,

Defendants.

| PROPOSED] STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL
WHEREAS, this Stipulation and Order of Settlement and Dismissal (“Stipulation”) is
entered into by and among (i) plaintiff the United States of America (the “Government” or “United
States”), by its attorney, Damian Williams, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of

New York, and on behalf of the United States Smal! Business Administration (the “SBA”), (ii) the
relator George Saites (“Relator”), by his authorized representative; and (iii) Christos Spyropoulos,
loannis Georgiades, Galatia Asprou, Aristotelis Spyropoulos, lordanis Spyropoulos, Limani 51,
LLC (“Limani 51”), Estiatorio Limani LLC (“Estiatorio Limani”), LML Hospitality LLC (“LML
Hospitality”), Oniro Taverna LLC (“Oniro Taverna”), BC International Group, Inc. (“BC
International’), BCL Services LLC (“BCI Services” and collectively with the other corporate
entities, the “Corporate Defendants,” and collectively with all defendants, “Defendants,” and
collectively with the Government and Relator, the Parties”), by their authorized representatives;

WHEREAS, Limani 51 is a company headquartered in New York, New York, that
operates a restaurant therein:

WHEREAS, Estiatorio Limani is a company headquartered in Roslyn, New York, that
operates a restaurant therein:

WHEREAS, LML Hospitality is a company headquartered in Roslyn, New York, that
operates a restaurant therein;

WHEREAS, Oniro Taverna is a company headquartered in Woodbury, New York, that
operates a restaurant therein;

WHEREAS, BC International is a company headquartered in Totowa, New Jersey, that
distributes and retails fur textiles and apparel across the United States;

WHEREAS, BCI Services is a company headquartered in Totowa, New Jersey, that
services and repairs fur textiles and apparel;

WHEREAS, Christos Spyropoulos, Ioannis Georgiades, Galatia Asprou, Aristotelis
Spyropoulos, and lordanis Spyropoulos (collectively, “Individual Defendants”) managed and/or
had ownership interests in one or more of the Corporate Defendants;

WHEREAS, the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) was established pursuant to the

Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act, which was enacted in March
2020 and was designed to provide emergency financial assistance to millions of Americans
suffering economic effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. One source of relief provided by
the CARES Act was the authorization of forgivable loans to small businesses for employee payroll
and certain other expenses through the PPP. To obtain a PPP loan, a qualifying business was
required to submit a PPP loan application, which is signed by an authorized representative of the
business. The loan application requires the business—through its authorized representative—to
acknowledge the PPP program’s rules (the “PPP Rules”) and make certain affirmative
certifications regarding its eligibility to obtain the PPP loan. In addition, the business is required
to provide, among other things, its: (a) average monthly payroll expenses; and (b) number of
employees. Following the lender approvals of loan applications, the participating lenders funded
the loans, which were 100% guaranteed by the SBA:

WHEREAS, on or about August 11, 2022, Relator filed a complaint under the qui fam
provisions of the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. § 3729 ef seqg., against, among others,
certain of the Defendants alleging, inter alia, that they violated the FCA by submitting PPP loan
applications with material misstatements that the loan funds would be used only for authorized
purposes, and then misappropriated the PPP funds by falsely inflating payroll expenses through
the creation of “no show” salaried, managerial jobs for various family members and an associate
of Defendants (the “Relator Complaint”);

WHEREAS, the United States alleges that Defendants violated the FCA by knowingly,
presenting and making, or causing to be presented and made, false claims and statements in
connection with their submission of PPP loan and forgiveness applications. Specifically, the
United States alleges that Defendants: (i) inflated payroll figures in their PPP loan and forgiveness
applications by misrepresenting that certain family members arid an acquaintance of the Individual

Defendants were employed by the Corporate Defendants when, in fact, they were not; (ii) inflated
payroll figures in their PPP loan and forgiveness applications by misrepresenting that certain
Individual Defendants were “full time employees” when they were not; (iii) inflated payroll figures
in their PPP loan and forgiveness applications by submitting incorrect full-time equivalent (“FTE”)
employee calculations such that in some instances the same individual was listed as an employee
of multiple Corporate Defendants and that individual’s wages was included in each of the
Corporate Defendants’ PPP loan and forgiveness applications; and (iv) improperly sought loan
forgiveness for payroll costs that exceeded the maximum allowed amount for certain owners and
employees of the Corporate Defendants. The conduct described in this Paragraph is the “Covered
Conduct” for purposes of this Stipulation;

WHEREAS, contemporaneous with the filing of this Stipulation, the Government is filing
a Notice of Election to Intervene and a Complaint-In-Intervention in the above-referenced gui fam
action (the “Government Complaint”), in which it asserts claims against Defendants under the
FCA and common law for the Covered Conduct;

WHEREAS, the Parties have, through this Stipulation, reached a mutually agreeable
resolution addressing the claims asserted against Defendants in the Government Complaint and
the Relator Complaint for the Covered Conduct:

NOW, THEREFORE, upon the Parties’ agreement, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

I, The Parties agree that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action and
consent to this Court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over each of them.

Ze Defendants admit, acknowledge, and accept responsibility for the following
conduct:

a. In April through May 2020, the Corporate Defendants each submitted,
through their authorized representatives, applications for first-draw PPP

loans to financial institutions. Each Corporate Defendant was approved for
and received a first-draw PPP loan as follows: BC International received
$3,637,632.00; BCI Services received $373,647.00; Estiatorio Limani
received $731,124.00; Limani 51 received $859,772.00; Oniro Taverna
received $329,497.00; and LML Hospitality received $396,084.62. In June
through July 2021, the Corporate Defendants, through their authorized
representatives, applied for and received full forgiveness of the first-draw
PPP loans, with the exception of BCI Services (which sought partial
forgiveness for the funds it received),

In January through May 2021, the Corporate Defendants each submitted,
through their authorized representatives, applications for second-draw PPP
loans to financial institutions, Each Corporate Defendant was approved and
received a second-draw PPP loan as follows; BC International received
$1,999,990,00; BCI Services received $373,647.00; Estiatorio Limani
received $1,023.571.00; Limani 51 received $1,185,758.98: Oniro Taverna
received $461,296.67; and LML Hospitality received $554,518.47. In
January through February 2022, the Corporate Defendants, through their
authorized representatives, applied for and received full forgiveness for the
second-draw PPP loans.

The Corporate Defendants certified in their PPP loan applications, among
other things, that the PPP funds would be used only for permissible costs
under the PPP Rules and that the information provided in the application
and the supporting documents was true and accurate in all material respects.
In their PPP loan forgiveness applications, the Corporate Defendants
certified, among other things, that: the dollar amount for which forgiveness
was requested was used to pay business costs that were eligible for
forgiveness; they had accurately verified the payments for the payroll costs
for which they were seeking forgiveness; and the information provided in
the applications and supporting documents was true and correct in all
material respects,

In their second-draw PPP loan application and first- and second-draw PPP
loan forgiveness applications, Estiatorio Limani, Limani 51, Oniro Taverna,
and LML Hospitality misrepresented and inflated their payroll and
employee headcounts by including wages attributable to six family
members and an acquaintance of the Individual Defendants in the
calculation of the PPP loan and PPP loan forgiveness amounts, even though
the seven individuals were “no show” employees who never undertook any
work for the Corporate Defendants and therefore were ineligible for
consideration, As a result, Estiatorio Limani, Limani 51, Oniro Taverna,
and LML Hospitality’s payrolls were collectively inflated by approximately
$250,000.00, and these defendants paid such PPP loan proceeds to these
non-employees, which was an improper use of PPP funds.

In its second-draw PPP loan application and first- and second-draw PPP
loan forgiveness applications, Limani 51 misrepresented and inflated its
payroll and employee headcounts by stating that three Individual
Defendants were “full time employees” of the entity when they were not.
f. In their first-draw and second-draw PPP loan applications and PPP loan
forgiveness applications, Estiatorio Limani, Limani 51, Oniro Taverna,
LML Hospitality, BC International, and BCI Services each misrepresented
and inflated their payroll and headcounts by erroneously listing some of the
same individuals as “full time employees” of different companies and
including their full wages in the PPP loan and forgiveness applications
submitted for each of the companies. For example, in BC International and
BCI Services’ second-draw PPP loan forgiveness applications, they each
simultaneously listed thirteen individuals as “full time employees” of both
companies—and sought forgiveness for the employees’ full wages at both
companies—resulting in $481,240.42 of loan proceeds being paid to these
individuals, which was an improper use of funds.

g. BC International and BC] Services misrepresented in their loan forgiveness
applications for their first-draw and second-draw PPP loans that they were
entitled to forgiveness for wages paid to their owners and certain employees
that exceeded the maximum amount permitted under the PPP Rules. For
example, in their first-draw and second-drawn PPP loan forgiveness
applications, BC International and BCI Services misrepresented that they
were entitled to $46,154.00 in forgiveness for the wages paid to Aristotelis
Spyropoulos, Jordanis Spyropoutos, and Galatia Asprou when, in fact, BC
International and BCI Services were entitled to at most $20,833.00 in
forgiveness for each of those defendants under the PPP Rules—resulting in
$334,578.00 of loan proceeds being paid to these individuals, which was an
improper use of funds.

h, Galatia Asprou, loannis Geogiades, Aristotelis Spyropoulos, Christos
Spyropoulos, and lordanis Spyropoulos were each involved in preparing the
PPP loan and/or forgiveness applications and personally signed certain of
the PPP loan and forgiveness applications on behalf of the Corporate
Defendants.

+ * ik
i. Asa result of the above-referenced conduct and misrepresentations, each of

the Corporate Defendants requested and received PPP loans for amounts
that were substantially above what they were entitled to receive.

3. Defendants shall pay to the Government within fourteen (14) business days of the
Effective Date (defined below in Paragraph 27) the sum of $4,646,700.21, plus interest which shall
be compounded annually at a rate of 5,01% accruing from May 5, 2024, to the date of the payment
(the “Settlement Amount”) in accordance with instructions to be provided by the Financial

Litigation Unit of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.
Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Government for the Settlement Amount. Of the
Settlement Amount, $2,358,782.39 constitutes restitution to the United States,

4, Defendants agree to cooperate fully and truthfully with the Government’s
investigation of entities and individuals not released in this Stipulation. Upon reasonable notice,
Defendants shall encourage, and agree not to impair, the cooperation of its directors, officers, and
employees, and shall use their best efforts to make available, and encourage, the cooperation of
former directors, officers, and employees for interviews and testimony, consistent with the rights
and privileges of such individuals. Defendants further agree to furnish to the Government, upon
request, complete and unredacted copies of all non-privileged documents, reports, memoranda of
interviews, and records in their possession, custody, or control concerning any investigation of the
Covered Conduct that they have undertaken, or that has been performed on their behalf by another.

Ky Subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 9 (concerning reserved claims), Paragraph
10 (concerning default), and Paragraph 14 (concerning bankruptcy proceedings) below, and
conditioned upon Defendants’ full compliance with the terms of this Stipulation, including full
payment of the Settlement Amount to the Government pursuant to Paragraph 3 above, the
Government releases Defendants, including their subsidiaries and corporate predecessors,
successors and assigns, from any civil or administrative monetary claim that the Government has
for the Covered Conduct under the FCA, the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act, 31 U.S.C.
§ 3801-3812, and the common law theories of fraud, payment by mistake, and unjust enrichment.
For avoidance of doubt, this Stipulation does not release any current or former officer, director,
employee, or agent of Defendants from liability of any kind, except for the Individual Defendants.

6. Defendants fully and finally release the Government, ifs agencies, officers,
employees, servants, and agents from any claims (including attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses

of every kind and however denominated) that Defendants have asserted, could have asserted, or
may assert in the future against the Government, its agencies, officers, employees, servants, or
agents related to the Covered Conduct and the Government’s investigation, prosecution, and
settlement thereof.

7. Subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 9 (concerning reserved claims), Paragraph
10 (concerning default), and Paragraph 14 (concerning bankruptcy proceedings) below, and
conditioned on timely payment by Defendants of the full Settkement Amount pursuant to Paragraph
3 above, Relator, for himself and his heirs, successors, attorneys. agents, and assigns, releases
Defendants, including its subsidiaries and corporate predecessors, successors, and assigns, as well
as all of Defendants’ current and former officers, directors, employees, attorneys, and other agents,
from any and all manner of claims, proceedings, liens, and causes of action of any kind or
description that Relator has against Defendants related to or arising from Relator’s Complaint,
provided, however, that nothing in this Stipulation shall preclude Relator from seeking to recover
his reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d) and seeking
relief pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h).

8. In consideration of the execution of this Stipulation by Relator and the Relator’s
release as set forth in Paragraph 7 above, Defendants, including their subsidiaries, predecessors,
and corporate successors and assigns, as well as all of their current and former officers, directors,
employees, attorneys, and other agents, release Relator and his heirs, successors, attorneys, agents,
and assigns, from any and all manner of claims, proceedings, liens, and causes of action of any
kind or description that Defendants have against the Relator related to or arising from the Relator
Complaint.

9, Notwithstanding the releases given in Paragraph 5 above, or any other term of this
Stipulation, the following claims of the Government are specifically reserved and are not released

by this Stipulation:
a, any liability arising under Title 26, United States Code (Internal

Revenue Code);
b. any criminal liability;

c. except as explicitly stated in this Stipulation, any administrative liability or
enforcement right, including the suspension and debarment rights of any federal

agency;

d. any liability to the Government (or its agencies) for any conduct other than the

Covered Conduct;
e, any liability based upon obligations created by this Stipulation; and

f. any liability of individuals, except for the Individual Defendants.

10. Defendants shall be in default of this Stipulation if Defendants fail to make the
required payment set forth in Paragraph 3 above on or before the due date for such payment, or if
they fail to comply materially with any other term of this Stipulation that applies to them
(“Default”). The Government shall provide written notice to Defendants of any Default in the
manner set forth in Paragraph 26 below. Defendants shall then have an opportunity to cure the
Default within seven (7) calendar days from the date of receipt of the Notice of Default by making
the payment due and paying any additional interest accruing under the Stipulation up to the date
of payment. If Defendants fail to cure the Default within seven (7) calendar days of receiving the
Notice of Default (*Uncured Detault”), interest on the remaining unpaid balance shall thereafter
accrue al the rate of 12% per annum, compounded daily from the date of Default, on the remaining
unpaid total (principal and interest balance), In the event ofan Uncured Default, Defendants shall
agree to the entry of a consent judgment in favor of the United States against Defendants in the
amount of the Settlement Amount as attached hereto as Exhibit A. Defendants also agree that the
United States, at its sole discretion, may (i) retain any payments previously made, rescind this

Stipulation, and reinstate the claims asserted against Defendants in the Government Complaint, or
bring any civil and/or administrative claim, action, or proceeding against Defendants for the claims
that would otherwise be covered by the releases provided in Paragraph 5, with any recovery
reduced by the amount of any payments previously made by Defendants to the United States under
this Stipulation: (ii) take any action to enforce this Stipulation in a new action or by reinstating the
Government Complaint; (iii) offset the remaining unpaid balance from any amounts due and owing
to Defendants and/or affiliated companies by any department, agency, or agent of the United States
at the time of Default or subsequently; and/or (iv) exercise any other right granted by law, or under
the terms of this Stipulation, or recognizable at common law or in equity. The United States shall
be entitled to any other rights granted by law or in equity by reason of Default, including referral
of this matter for private collection. In the event the United States pursues a collection action,
Defendants agree immediately to pay the United States the greater of (i) a ten-percent (10%)
surcharge of the amount collected, as allowed by 28 U.S.C. § 301 1(a), or (ii) the United States’
reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in such an action. In the event that the United
States opts to rescind this Stipulation pursuant to this paragraph, Defendants waive and agree not
to plead, argue, or otherwise raise any defenses of statute of limitations, laches, estoppel or similar
theories, to any civil or administrative claims that (i) are filed by the United States against
Defendants within 120 days of written notification that this Stipulation has been rescinded, and
(ii) relate to the Covered Conduct, except to the extent these defenses were available on August
22, 2022. Defendants agree not to contest any offset, recoupment, and/or collection action
undertaken by the United States pursuant to this paragraph, either administratively or in any state
or federal court, except on the grounds of actual payment to the United States,

11. Defendants, having truthfully admitted to the conduct set forth in Paragraph 2
hereof (the “Admitted Conduct”), agree that they shall not, through their attorneys, agents, officers,

or employees, make any public statement, including but not limited to, any statement in a press

10
release, social media forum, or website, that contradicts or is inconsistent with the Admitted
Conduct or suggests that the Admitted Conduct is not wrongful (a “Contradictory Statement”).
Any Contradictory Statement by Defendants, their attorneys, agents. officers, or employees, shall
constitute a violation of this Stipulation, thereby authorizing the Government to pursue any of the
remedies set forth in Paragraph 10 of this Stipulation, or seek other appropriate relief from the
Court. Before pursuing any remedy, the Government shall notify Defendants that it has
determined that Defendants have made a Contradictory Statement. Upon receiving notice from
the Government, Defendants may cure the violation by repudiating the Contradictory Statement in
a press release or other public statement within four business days. If any Defendant learns of a
potential Contradictory Statement by its attorneys, agents, officers, or employees, the Defendant
must notify the Government of the statement within 24 hours. The decision as to whether any
statement constitutes a Contradictory Statement or will be imputed to Defendants for the purpose
of this Stipulation, or whether Defendants adequately repudiated a Contradictory Statement to cure
a violation of this Stipulation, shall be within the sole discretion of the Government, Consistent
with this provision, Defendants may raise defenses and/or assert affirmative claims or defenses in
any proceeding brought by private and/or public parties, so long as doing so would not contradict
or be inconsistent with the Admitted Conduct.

12. Relator and his heirs, successors, attorneys, agents, and assigns shall not object to
this Stipulation; Relator further agrees and affirms that the terms of this Stipulation are fair,
adequate, and reasonable under all the circumstances, pursuant to 31 U.S.C, § 3730(c)(2)(B).

13, Defendants waive and shall not assert any defenses they may have to any criminal
prosecution or adininistrative action relating to the Covered Conduct that may be based in whole

or in part on a contention that, under the Double Jeopardy Clause in the Fifth Amendment of the
Constitution, or under the Excessive Fines Clause in the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution,

this Stipulation bars a remedy sought in such criminal prosecution or administrative action,

14. — In exchange for yaluable consideration provided in this Stipulation, Defendants

acknowledge the following:

a.

Defendants have reviewed their financial situation and warrant that they are
solvent within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. §§ 547(b)(3) and 548(a)(1)(B)(ii)(1)
and shall remain solvent following payment to the United States of the
Settlement Amount.

In evaluating whether to execute this Agreement, the Parties intend that the
mutual promises, covenants. and obligations set forth herein constitute a
contemporaneous exchange for new yalue given to Defendants, within the
meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(1), and the Parties conclude that these mutual
promises, covenants, and obligations do, in fact, constitute such a
contemporaneous exchange.

The mutual promises, covenants, and obligations set forth herein are intended
by the Parties to, and do in fact, constitute a reasonably equivalent exchange of
value,

The Parties do not intend to hinder, delay, or defraud any entity to which
Defendants were or became indebted on or after the date of any transfer
contemplated in this Stipulation, within the meaning of 11 U.S.C, § 548(a)(1).
If Defendants’ obligations under this Stipulation are avoided for any reason
(including but not limited to through the exercise of a trustee's avoidance
powers under the Bankruptcy Code) or if, before the Settlement Amount is paid

in full, Defendants or a third party commences a case, proceeding, or other
action under any law relating to bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, or
relief of debtors seeking any order for relief of Defendants’ debts, or to
adjudicate any Defendant as bankrupt or insolvent, or seeking appointment of
a receiver, trustee, custodian, or other similar official for any Defendant or for
all or any substantial part of any Defendant's assets:

(1) the United States may rescind the releases in this Stipulation and bring any
civil and/or administrative claim, action, or proceeding against Defendants
for the claims that would otherwise be covered by the releases provided in
Paragraph 5;

(2) the United States has an undisputed, noncontingent, and liquidated allowed
claim against Defendants in the amount of $4,646,700.21, less any
payments received pursuant to the Stipulation, provided, however, that such
payments are not otherwise avoided and recovered from the United States
by Defendants, a receiver, trustee, custodian, or other similar official for
any Defendant; and

(3) if any payments are avoided and recovered by Defendants, a receiver,
trustee, custodian, or similar official for any Defendant, the Relator shall,
within thirty days of written notice from the United States to the
undersigned Relator’s counsel, return any portions of such payments
already paid by the United States to the Relator.

f. Defendants agree that any civil and/or administrative claim, action, or
proceeding brought by the United States under Paragraph 14(e) above is not
subject to an “automatic stay” pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) because it would

be an exercise of the United States’ police and regulatory power, Defendants
shall not argue or otherwise contend that the United States’ claim, action, or
proceeding is subject to an automatic stay and, to the extent necessary, consent
to relief from the automatic stay for cause under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1),
Defendants waive and shall not plead, argue, or otherwise raise any defenses
under the theories of statute of limitations, laches, estoppel, or similar theories,
to any such civil or administrative claim, action, or proceeding brought by the
United States within 120 days of written notification to Defendants that the
releases have been rescinded pursuant to this paragraph, except fo the extent
such defenses were available on August | 1, 2022.
15. Defendants agree to the following:

a, Unallowable Costs Defined: All costs (as defined in the Federal Acquisition

Regulation, 48 C.F.R. § 31.205-47) incurred by or on behalf of the
Corporate Defendants, the Individual Defendants, or the Corporate
Defendants’ present or former officers, directors, employees, shareholders,
and agents in connection with: (i) the matters covered by this Stipulation,
(ii) the United States’ civil investigation(s) of the matters covered by this
Stipulation; (iii) Defendants’ investigation, defense, and corrective actions
undertaken in response to the United States’ civil investigation(s) in
connection with the matters covered by this Stipulation (including
attorneys’ fees); (iv) the negotiation and performance of this Stipulation;
and (v) the payment Defendants make to the United States pursuant to this
Stipulation and any payments that Defendants may make to Relator,
including costs and attorneys’ fees, are unallowable costs for government

contracting purposes (hereinafter referred to as “Unallowable Costs”).
b. Future Treatment of Unallowable Costs: Unallowable Costs will be separately

determined and accounted for by Defendants, and Defendants shall not charge
such Unallowable Costs directly or indirectly to any contract with the United
States.

c. Treatment of Unallowable Costs Previously Submitted for Payment: Within 90

days of the Effective Date of this Stipulation, Defendants shall identify and
repay by adjustment to future claims for payment or otherwise any Unallowable
Costs included in payments previously sought by the Corporate Defendants or
any of their subsidiaries or affiliates from the United States, Defendants agree
that the United States, at a minimum, shall be entitled to recoup from
Defendants any overpayment plus applicable interest and penalties as a result
of the inclusion of such Unallowable Costs on previously submitted requests
for payment. The United States, including the Department of Justice and/or the
affected agencies, reserves its rights to audit, examine, or re-examine
Defendants’ books and records and to disagree with any calculations submitted
by the Corporate Defendants or any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, regarding
any Unallowable Costs included in payments previously sought by Defendants,
or the effect of any such Unallowable Costs on the amount of such payments.
d, Nothing in this Stipulation shall constitute a waiver of the rights of the
Government to audit, examine, or re-examine Defendants’ books and records
to determine that no Unallowable Costs have been claimed in accordance with
the provisions of this Paragraph,
16. This Stipulation is intended to be for the benefit of the Parties only. The Parties do

not release any claims against any other person or entity except as otherwise provided herein.

15
17, Each Party shall bear its own legal and other costs incurred in connection with this
matter, including the preparation and performance of this Stipulation; provided, however, nothing
in this Stipulation shall preclude Relator from seeking to recover his expenses or attorneys’ fees
and costs from Defendants, pursuant to 31 U.S.C, § 3730(d).

18. Any failure by the Government to insist upon the full or material performance of
any of the provisions of this Stipulation shall not be deemed a waiver of any of the provisions
hereof, and the Government, notwithstanding that failure, shall have the right thereafter to insist
upon the full or material performance of any and all of the provisions of this Stipulation.

19. This Stipulation is governed by the laws of the United States. The exclusive
jurisdiction and venue for any dispute relating to this Stipulation is the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

20. ‘For purposes of construing this Stipulation, this Stipulation shall be deemed to have
been drafted by all Parties to this Stipulation and shall not, therefore, be construed against any
Party for that reason in any subsequent dispute.

21. This Stipulation constitutes the complete agreement between the Parties with
respect to the subject matter hereof. This Stipulation may not be amended except by written
consent of the Parties. No prior agreements, oral representations, or statements shall be considered
part of this Stipulation.

22, +The undersigned counsel and other signatories represent and warrant that they are
fully authorized to execute this Stipulation on behalf of the persons and the entities indicated
below.

23. This Stipulation is binding on Defendants’ successors, transferees, heirs, and
assigns.

24. This Stipulation is binding on Relator’s successors, transferees, heirs, and assigns.
25, ‘This Stipulation may be executed in counterparts, each of which constitutes an
original and all of which constitute one and the same Stipulation. E-mails that attach signatures in
PDF form or facsimiles of signatures shall constitute acceptable, binding signatures for purposes
of this Stipulation.

26, Any notice pursuant to this Stipulation shall be in writing and shall, unless
expressly provided otherwise herein, be delivered by hand, express courier, or e-mail transmission
followed by postage-prepaid mail, and shall be addressed as follows:

TO THE UNITED STATES;

Adam Gitlin

Assistant United States Attorney
86 Chambers Street, Third Floor
New York, New York 10007

TO DEFENDANTS BC INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC., BC] SERVICES
LLC, ESTIATORIO LIMANI LLC, LIMANI 51 LLC, LML HOSPITALITY LLC,
AND ONIRO TAVERNA LLC:

Jeffrey Hoffman, Esq.

Gabriel Altman, Esq.

Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP
156 West 56th Street

New York, New York 10019
jhoffinan@windelsmarx.com
galtman(@windelsmarx.com

TO DEFENDANT GALATIA ASPROU:

Marjan Moussavian, Esq.

Christopher Adams, Esq.

Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP
99 Wood Avenue South

Iselin, New Jersey 08830
mmoussavian@greenbaumlaw.com
cadams@greenbaumlaw.com
TO DEFENDANT IOANNIS GEORGIADES;

Michael Bachner, Esq.
Bachner & Associates, PC
111 Broadway Suite 701
New York, New York 10006
mb@bhlawfirm.com

TO DEFENDANTS ARISTOTELIS SPYROPOULOS, CHRISTOS
SPYROPOULOS, AND IORDANIS SPYROPOULOS:

Jeffrey Hoffman, Esq.

Gabriel Altman, Esq.

Windels Marx Lane & Mittendort, LLP
156 West 56th Street

New York, New York 10019
jhoffman@windelsmarx.com

TO RELATOR:

Joseph Ferri, Esq.

Joseph P. Ferri, P.C.

7600 Jericho Turnpike; Suite 201
Woodbury, New York | 1797
josephferri@ferrilaw.com

27. ‘The effective date of this Stipulation is the date upon which it is approved by the

Court (the “Effective Date”),
Agreed to by:

THE UNITED STATES

Dated: June /4., 2024

DAMIAN WILLIAMS

United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York

By:
ADAM GITL
Assistant United States Attorney
86 Chambers Street, Third Floor
New York, New York 10007
Tel.: (212) 637-2734
Attorney for the United States

THE DEFENDANTS

Dated: June /|0, 2024

vy PYROPOULO
By: /

ristos Spyropoulos

IOANNIS GEORGIADES

By:
loannis Georgiades

GALATIA ASPROU

By:
Galatia Asprou

19
Agreed to by:

THE UNITED STATES

Dated: June __, 2024
DAMIAN WILLIAMS
United States Attorney for the

Southern District of New York

By:

ADAM GITLIN

Assistant United States Attorney
86 Chambers Street, Third Floor
New York, New York 10007
Tel: (212) 637-2734
Attorney for the United States

THE DEFENDANTS
Dated: June. 2024

CHRISTOS SPYROPOULOS

By:

Christos Spyropoulos

IOANNIS GEORGIADES

GALATIA ASPROU

By:
Galatia Asprou

19
Agreed to by:

THE UNITED STATES

Dated: June, 2024

THE DEFENDANTS

Dated: June _, 2024

By:

DAMIAN WILLIAMS

United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York

ADAM GITLIN

Assistant United States Attorney
86 Chambers Street, Third Floor
New York, New York 10007
Tel.: (212) 637-2734

Attorney for the United States

CHRISTOS SPYROPOULOS

By:

Christos Spyropoulos

IOANNIS GEORGIADES

By:

loannis Georgiades

GALATIA ASPROU

By: 2 TBPey
Galatia Asprou

19
ARISTOTELIS SPYROPOULOS

IORDANIS SPYROPOULOS
rdanis Spyropoulos

LIMANI S51 LLC

By:

By:

loannis Georgiades
Ca-Owner, Limani 51 LLC

ESTIATORIO LIMANIT LLC

By:

loannis Georgiades
Co-Owner, Estiatorio Limani LLC

C'o-Owner, LML

Os Spyropoulos
(Co-Owner, Ontro Taverna LLC

Ch Spyropoulos
Co-Owner, BC’ International Group, Inc.

20
ARISTOTELIS SPYROPOULOS

By:

Aristotelis Spyropoulos

l{ORDANIS SPY ROPOULOS

By:

lordanis Spyropoulos

LIMANI 51 LLC

€Toannis Georgiddes

Co-Owner, Limani 51 LLC

ESTIATORIO LIMANI LLC

Co-Owner, Estiatorio Limani LLC

LML HOSPITALITY LLC

By:

Christos Spyropoulos
Co-Owner, LML Hospitality LLC

ONIRO TAVERNA LLC

By:

Christos Spyropoulos
Co-Owner, Oniro Taverna LLC

BC INTERNATIONAL GROUP. INC.

By:

Christos Spyropoulos
Co-Owner, BC International Group, Ine.

20
BCI SERVICES LLC

ordanis Spyropoulos

Co-Owner, BCI Services LLC

Jeffrey Hoffman, Esq.
Gabriel Altman, Esq.
Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP
156 West 56th Street
New York, New York 10019
jhoffman@windelsmarx.com
galtman@windelsmarx.com
Altorneys for the Corporate Defendants, Aristotelis

Spyropoulos, Christos Spyropoulos, and lordanis
Spyropoulos

ITTENDORF, LLP

BACHNER & ASSOCIATES, PC

By:

Michael Bachner, Esq.

Bachner & Associates, PC

111 Broadway Suite 701

New York, New York 10006
mb@bhlawfirm.com

Attorney for loannis Georgiades

GREENBAUM, ROWE, SMITH & DAVIS LLP

By:

Marjan Moussavian, Esq.

Christopher Adams, Esq.

Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP
99 Wood Avenue South

Iselin, New Jersey 08830
mmoussavian@greenbaumlaw.com
cadams@greenbaumlaw.com

Attorneys for Galatia Asprou

21
By:

By:

By:

By:

BCI SERVICES LLC

lordanis Spyropoulos
Co-Owner, BC] Services LLC

WINDELS MARX LANE & MITTENDORF, LLP

Jeffrey Hoffman, Esq.

Gabriel Altman, Esq.

Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP

156 West 56th Street

New York, New York 10019
jhoffman@windelsmarx.com
galtman@windelsmarx.com

Attorneys for the Corporate Defendants, Aristotelis
Spyropoulos, Christos Spyropoulos, and lordanis

Spyropoulos

Michael Hartinsr Esa,
Bachner &Associates, PC
111 Broadway Suite 701
New York, New York 10006

mb@bhlawfirm.com
Attorney for loannis Georgiades

GREENBAUM. ROWE, SMITH & DAVIS LLP

Marjan Moussavian, Esq.

Christopher Adams, Esq.

Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP
99 Wood Avenue South

Iselin, New Jersey 08830
mmoussavian@greenbaumlaw.com
cadams@greenbaumlaw.com

Attorneys for Galatia Asprou
BCI SERVICES LLC

By:

lordanis Spyropoulos
Co-Owner, BCI Services LLC

WINDELS MARX LANE & MITTENDORF, LLP

By:

Jeffrey Hoffman, Esq.

Gabriel Altman, Esq,

Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP

156 West 56th Street

New York, New York 10019
jhoffman@windelsmarx.com
galtman(@windelsmarx.com

Attorneys for the Corporate Defendants, Aristotelis
Spyropoulos, Christos Spyropoulos, and Iordanis

Spyropoulos

BACHNER & ASSOCIATES, PC

By:

Michael Bachner, Esq.

Bachner & Associates, PC

111 Broadway Suite 701

New York, New York 10006
mb@bhlawfirm.com

Attorney for loannis Geargiades

GREENBAUM, ROWE, SMITH & DAVIS LLP

By:

Marjan Moussavian, Esq.

Christopher Adams, Esq.

Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP
99 Wood Avenue South

Iselin, New Jersey 08830
mmoussavian@greenbaumlaw.com
cadams@greenbaumlaw.com

Attorneys for Galatia Asprou

21
ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Plaintiff the United States of America is
awarded judgment in the amount of $4.646.700.21 jointly and severally against Christos
Spyropoulos, loannis Georgiades, Galatia Asprou, Aristotelis Spyropoulos, lordanis Spyropoulos,
Limani 51 LLC, Estiatorio Limani LLC. LML Hospitality LLC, Oniro Taverna LLC. BC
International Group, Inc., and BC] Services LLC. as well as post-judgment interest at the rate of

12% per annum compounded daily.

Agreed to by:

THE UNITED STATES
Tee

Dated: tie 7 2024

DAMIAN WILLIAMS

United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York

ADAM GITLIN

Assistant United States Attorney
86 Chambers Street, Third Floor
New York, New York 10007
Tel.: (212) 637-2734
Attorney for the United States

THE DEFENDANTS

Dated: May |5—, 2024

Christos Spyropoulos A)

4
IOANNIS GEORGIADES

By:
loannis Georgiades

GALATIA ASPROU

By;
Galatia Asprou

ARISTOTELIS SPYROPOULOS

By:

Aristoteli{S pyropoulo

IORDANIS SPYROPOULOS

LIMANI 51 LLC

By:

Ioannis Georgiades
Co-Owner, Limani 31 LLC

ESTIATORIO LIMANI LLC

By:

loannis Georgiades
Co-Owner, Estiatorio Limani LLC

Christos Spyropoulus
Co-Owner, LML Hospitality LLC
[OANNIS GEORGIADES

GALATIA ASPROU

By:
Galatia Asprou

ARISTOTELIS SPYROPOULOS

By:

Aristotelis Spyropoulos

IORDANIS SPYROPOULOS

By:

lordanis Spyropoulos

LIMANI 51 LLC

AS

Co-Owner, Limani 51 LLC

ESTIATORIO LIMANI LLC

Co-Owner, Estiatorio Limani LLC

LML HOSPITALITY LLC

By:

Christos Spyropoulos
Co-Owner, LML Hospitality LLC
loannis Cieorgiades

GALATIA ASPROU

Galatia Asprou

ARISTOTELIS SPYROPOULOS

By:

Aristotelis Spyropoulos

IORDANIS SPYROPOULOS

By:

lordanis Spyropoulos

LIMANI 51 LLC

By:
loannis Georgiades
Co-Owner, Limani 51 LLC

ESTIATORIO LIMANI LLC

By:

loannis Georgiades
Co-Owner, Estiatorio Limani LLC

Chitistos Spyrapoulos
ONIRO TAYE

By:

Co-Owner, Oniro Taverna LLC

BC INTE oe ROUP, INC,

By:

ristos Spyropoulos
Co-Owner, BC International Group, Inc,

BCL SERVICES LLC

lordanis Spyropoulos
Co-Owner, BCI Services LLC

WINDELS NA AWE & MITTENDORF, LLP

Jeffrey Hoffman, Esq,

Gabriel Altman, Esq.

Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP

156 West 56th Street

New York, New York 10019
jhoffman@windelsmarx.com
galtman@windelsmarx,com

Attorneys for Limani 5] LLC, Estiatorio Limani
LLC, LML Hospitality LLC, Oniro Taverna LLC, BC
International Group, Inc., BC Services LLC,
Aristotelis Spyropoulos, Christos Spyropoulos, and

lordanis Spyropoulos
SO ORDERED:

BA 2R & ASSQCIATES, PC

Bdchner sociates, PC

ll dway Suite 701

New York, New York 10006
mb@bhlawfirm.com

Attorney for Ioannis Georgiades

GREENBAUM, ROWE, SMITH & DAVIS LLP

Marjan Moussavian, Esq.

Christopher Adams, Esq.

Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP
99 Wood Avenue South

[selin, New Jersey 08830
mmoussavian@greenbaumlaw.com
cadams@greenbaumlaw.com
Attorneys for Galatia Asprou

HON, EDGARDO RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: June 20, 2024
BACHNER & ASSOCIATES, PC

By:

Michael Bachner, Esq.

Bachner & Associates, PC

111 Broadway Suite 701

New York, New York 10006
mb@bhlawfirm.com

Attorney for loannis Georgiades

GREENBAUM, ROWE, SMITH & DAVIS LLP

By:

Marjan Moussavian, Esq.

Christopher Adams, Esq.

Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP
99 Wood Avenue South

Iselin, New Jersey 08830
mmoussavian@greenbaumlaw.com

Attorneys for Galatia Asprou

SO ORDERED:

HON. EDGARDO RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: , 2024


File and source

File

9-doj-media-1356641.pdf

Size

1,812,381 bytes

SHA-256

a77ff51f062b990fae9a8eb27f439d34b40ad7635fab23aee4c834abc01ecf6f

Our copy

9-doj-media-1356641.pdf

Original

www.justice.gov