Couple Pleads Guilty to $1.1 Million COVID-Relief Fraud After Falsely Claiming to Be Farmers
News From the U.S. Department of Justice
A Florida couple pleaded guilty for their participation in a scheme to file four fraudulent loan applications seeking more than $1.1 million in forgivable Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL) loans guaranteed by the Small Business Administration (SBA) under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.
On Aug. 26, 2020, Latoya Stanley, 38, and Johnny Philus, 33, both of Miami, were originally charged via a complaint filed in the Southern District of Florida.
In Stanley’s PPP application, she claimed to employ 18 individuals from her company, Dream Gurl Beauty Supply LLC. Philus, meanwhile, stated that he employed 29 individuals at his company, Elegance Auto Boutique LLC. In actuality, Stanley and Philus did not employ anyone at their respective companies.
In her EIDL application, Stanley claimed to generate over $800,000 in income and to employ five individuals from a farm based in the yard of her Miami home. In his EIDL application, Philus claimed to generate $400,000 in income and to employ 10 individuals from a farm located in the yard of a small residential home. In actuality, Stanley and Philus employed no one and the farms did not exist.
Stanley and Philus worked together to effectuate the fraud and ultimately received over $1 million in fraudulent funds from the fraudulent PPP and EIDL applications before their schemes were uncovered.
Sentencing has been scheduled for June 2.
Acting Assistant Attorney General Nicholas L. McQuaid of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division; U.S. Attorney Ariana Fajardo Orshan of the Southern District of Florida; Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) J. Russell George; Inspector General Hannibal “Mike” Ware of the SBA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG); and Inspector in Charge Antonio Gomez of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service Miami Division made the announcement.
The CARES Act is a federal law enacted on March 29, 2020, designed to provide emergency financial assistance to the millions of Americans who are suffering the economic effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. One source of relief provided by the CARES Act was the authorization of up to $349 billion in forgivable loans to small businesses for job retention and certain other expenses, through the PPP. In April 2020, Congress authorized over $300 billion in additional PPP funding.
The PPP allows qualifying small businesses and other organizations to receive loans with a maturity of two years and an interest rate of 1%. PPP loan proceeds must be used by businesses on payroll costs, interest on mortgages, rent, and utilities. The PPP allows the interest and principal on the PPP loan to be forgiven if the business spends the loan proceeds on these expense items within a designated period of time after receiving the proceeds and uses at least a certain percentage of the PPP loan proceeds on payroll expenses.
The EIDL program is designed to provide economic relief to small businesses that are currently experiencing a temporary loss of revenue. EIDL proceeds can be used to cover a wide array of working capital and normal operating expenses, such as continuation of health care benefits, rent, utilities and fixed debt payments. If an applicant also obtains a loan under the PPP, the EIDL funds cannot be used as the same purpose as the PPP funds.
This case was investigated by the SBA-OIG, USPIS, and TITGA. Trial Attorney Louis Manzo of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section is prosecuting the case.
Discovery Strategies in Wage and Hour Class and Collective Actions Before and After Certification of Putative Class
Discovery Strategies in Wage and Hour Class and Collective Actions Before and After Certification of Putative Class Strategically Limiting Discovery, Resolving Discovery Disputes Wage and hour class and collective actions are complex and discovery intensive. Discovery requests are often burdensome, seeking information concerning a broad swath of workers. This causes the discovery process to sometimes linger for years and creates a significant expense for employers.In recent years, courts have emphasized that parties must rein in extensive and expensive discovery requests. Employment litigators are increasingly raising proportionality arguments as a basis for objecting to opposing counsel's discovery requests. Drafters are responding by tailoring requests to anticipate such challenges. Drafting discovery requests that are likely to withstand burden and proportionality challenges and objections to broad discovery requests is critical for litigators representing employers in wage and hour class and collective actions. Employment litigators must develop and implement effective discovery strategies both before and, as applicable, after certification of the putative class. These strategies often must anticipate the possibility of a future summary judgment motion, further certification practice, and trial on the merits. Listen as our authoritative panel of employment law attorneys explains effective strategies for pursuing or objecting to discovery requests in wage and hour collective and class actions and resolving discovery disputes that arise during litigation. Questions Addressed: What are the most common discovery challenges counsel face when litigating wage and hour collective and class actions--from initiation through resolution of the case? What strategies have been effective in wage and hour collective and class actions for obtaining essential information with the least expense? What is the scope of discoverable evidence before and after certification of the putative class, and how can you limit or best manage discovery? When drafting discovery requests in wage and hour class and collective actions, what should employment counsel consider to ensure that the requests align with the proportionality standard? Interested in More CLE OnDemand? Click Here. Interested in this program? Click here to send us a note. Interested in this program? Click here to send [...]
PFAS Consumer Fraud Litigation
HB Litigation Conferences presents a CLE-eligible webinar PFAS Consumer Fraud Litigation and Regulation On August 26, 2022, yet another PFAS consumer fraud lawsuit was filed against a product manufacturer in which it is alleged that since the products contained PFAS and the company marketed the products as environmentally friendly and safe for use by consumers, a proposed class of consumers was deceived into buying the allegedly unsafe products. The lawsuit is not an isolated incident, as there have been over 20 such lawsuits, almost all of them filed in 2022. With the ever-increasing media, political and scientific attention being given to PFAS, the panelists predict that these lawsuits will continue to increase at an exponentially increasing rate moving forward against companies of all sizes that manufacture and supply products. Bringing together almost 20 years of product litigation experience and decades of scientific expertise in the field of chemicals such as PFAS, the panelists will discuss the legal issues that companies are facing from current or legacy uses of PFAS (whether intentional or not) and practical solutions that can be taken pre-lawsuit to understand and minimize risk. Questions answered: What do state and federal regulations say about PFAS in drinking water? If your company doesn’t use the two original types of PFAS, are you at less risk of litigation? Which industries currently face the most risk of PFAS-related consumer fraud cases? Are plaintiffs securing significant verdicts in personal injury litigation? And more! Plus, email your questions to the presenters. On Demand CLE Webinar What you get PowerPoint and supplemental materials. Complete recording for later review. Answers to your questions via email. Invitation to contact speakers. 1.5 CLE credit*. CLE assistance. *Subject to state bar rules. For licensed attorneys. Register Download a free article! Meet the Speakers John Gardella Shareholder | CMBG3 John is a recognized thought leader on PFAS issues and a seasoned trial attorney with over 75 verdicts. He the Chair of the [...]
U.S. Government Enforcement Actions: Regulatory remediation settlement trends and claims administration best practices
HB Litigation Conferences presents a complimentary CLE-eligible webinar on-demand Government Enforcement Actions Regulatory Remediation Settlement Trends and Administration Best Practices Government enforcement actions are increasing. It’s important for attorneys to understand regulatory trends and best practices for remediation and administration, and how these actions differ from traditional class action settlements. Here are some of the questions our speakers will address in this CLE-eligible webinar: Why are government enforcement actions increasing? What are the common types of government consumer enforcement actions and how do they proceed? How do government enforcement actions differ from class actions? What are the key considerations in settlement negotiations in government enforcement actions? What are the components of settlement agreements in a government enforcement action? What notice efforts are required to help satisfy expected participation rates? Plus, answers to your questions via live chat. Webinar On Demand Recorded January 2023 What you get: PowerPoint and supplemental materials. Complete recording for later review. Answers to your questions via email. Invitation to contact speakers directly. 1 CLE credit*. CLE assistance. *Subject to state bar rules. For licensed attorneys. Register Meet the Speakers Mark Rapazzini Senior Director | Kroll Mark has more than 25 years of legal experience in cases ranging from individual personal injury litigation to class actions and complex mass torts. Prior to Kroll, Mark was an attorney at Alexander, Rapazzini & Graham, a partner at Duane Morris LLP, and as a founding partner at Rapazzini & Graham, LLP. While practicing law, Mark and his law partner founded RG2 Claims Administration, LLC, where he served as Chief Operating Officer responsible for business development and strategic direction. In 2008, Mark and his RG2 co-founder joined a national claims administration company, where he was a Senior Vice President in client services and consulting. Mark has more than 20 years of experience managing and supervising complex claims administration and government enforcement matters. He has served as a Court-Appointed Mediator, Court-Appointed Arbitrator, Settlement Judge [...]
Rule 23(c)(4) Issue Certification: Reconciling the Conflict With the Predominance Requirement
Rule 23(c)(4) Issue Certification: Reconciling the Conflict with the 23(b)(3) Predominance Requirement Proposed class actions seeking monetary damages are often difficult to certify because common issues do not predominate over individualized issues as required by Rule 23(b)(3). Rule 23(c)(4) provides that "[w]hen appropriate, an action may be brought or maintained as a class action with respect to particular issues."Although Rule 23(c)(4) has been part of the rule since the landmark 1966 amendments, it was often overlooked until the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes. Plaintiffs now routinely seek limited issue certification for purported common issues, such as liability, arguing that questions of injury, reliance, or causation should be left for individual cases. When approved, this approach increases defendants' exposure by permitting certification in some cases that would otherwise fail the Rule 23(b)(3) standards.The federal circuits are now in a three-way split on how issue certification should be treated under Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement. While the Fifth Circuit has taken the textual view in Castano v. American Tobacco Co. that permits issue certification only if the class first qualifies under Rule 23(b)(3), the Ninth, Sixth, Second, and Seventh Circuits have adopted the opposite view that Rule 23(c)(4) certification does not require predominance. The Third Circuit has clarified and heightened the test in Russell v. Educ. Comm’n for Foreign Med. Graduates, 20-2128 (3d Cir. Sept. 24, 2021), but offers both sides plenty to consider. The remaining circuits are uncommitted, leaving the district courts to address the matter.Listen as our panel of experienced class action litigators analyzes the varying circuit court positions on Rule 23(c)(4) issue classes and the implications of practitioners' decisions when pursuing or opposing class certification. Outline The emergence of issue classes under Rule 23(c)(4) What is an issue class? How are they being strategically used? Where are the grey areas? Key court decisions on issue class certification Textual and historical analysis of Rule 23(c)(4) Strategies for defending the trial of "issue" classes Journal (JEIL): Artificial Intelligence Litigation Risks in the Employment Discrimination Context. By Gerald Maatman Jr., Alex Karasik, and George Schaller CLE [...]
Safeguarding Against Financial Exploitation
An on-demand CLE-eligible webinar Safeguarding Against Financial Exploitation America’s senior population is growing. Nearly one in five U.S. residents will be 65 or older in 2030. Which means the average age of U.S. investors is climbing too. With that comes the risk that they will be exploited by people with access – or gain access through nefarious methods – to their investment portfolio. Seniors and vulnerable persons lose billions of dollars each year. Remarkably, 90% of the people to take advantage of senior investors are members of their own family. Attorneys who represent senior clients need to know the signs of vulnerability, red flags that their clients are being exploited, what laws apply, and rules lawyers must follow in these matters. Questions our speakers answer: What is senior / vulnerable investor exploitation? Who is protected by state and federal laws? How prevalent is senior financial exploitation? What do the numbers tell us? What is the pace of financial abuse SAR filings by securities firms? What are the most popular scams? What is diminished capacity? What are the red flags indicating possible exploitation? What are the laws, rules, and regulations governing law firms? What are some best practices for law firms? How can firms best protect their senior clients? On Demand CLE Webinar What You Get PowerPoint and supplemental materials. Complete recording for later review. Answers to your questions via email. Invitation to contact speakers. 1.5 CLE credits (for licensed attorneys). CLE assistance.* *Subject to state bar rules. For licensed attorneys. Register Meet the Speakers Joseph Calabrese Bressler, Amery & Ross, P.C. A 1991 Graduate of St. John’s University Law School, Mr. Calabrese brings 30 years of practice and 18 years of Securities Litigation/Regulatory experience to his role as principal in the New York office of Bressler, Amery & Ross’s Financial Institutions Group. He began his career as a Wall Street litigator as an associate general counsel for Citigroup’s Smith Barney and [...]
PTSD in Mass Torts & Multi-Plaintiff Cases. What attorneys need to know.
PTSD in mass tort and multi-plaintiff cases. What attorneys need to know. Mass tort claims arise most frequently in man-made and natural disaster catastrophe litigation as well as personal injury, employment, product liability and toxic tort litigation. Frequently, these lawsuits include either primary or secondary allegations of emotional distress. PTSD is one of the most common emotional distress claims alleged within mass tort litigation, as well as allegations of depression and emotional stress (anxiety). Join an experienced psychiatrist and psychologist who will cover topics relevant to the forensic psychiatric assessment of emotional damages within mass tort and complex litigation. Agenda Introduction: Defining PTSD. What it is and what it is not. The methodological approach to assessing allegations of emotional distress in mass tort & complex litigation. The importance and the methodology of psychological testing as part of the assessment of emotional distress claims in mass tort litigation. Claimant population screening. Using psychological test instruments to differentiate claimants who require in-depth forensic psychiatric assessment from claimants who do not. Are all psych tests the same? Types of psychological test instruments we recommend and ones that we do not — and why. So-called “PTSD Tests.” Do they have a role in forensic psychological assessments? Accuracy and reliability of conclusions derived from psychological test data. Taking a “team approach” to emotional distress claim assessment in mass tort litigation. On Demand Registration Webinar On Demand 75 minutes of insights from experienced professionals. CLE credit: 1+ (subject to bar rules). CLE support by email. The complete Power Point presentation. Continued access to the complete recording for later use. Answers to speaker questions by email. On Demand Registration Meet the speakers. Mark I. Levy MD, DLFAPA Medical Director Forensic Psychiatric Associates Medical Corporation Associate Clinical Professor, Psychiatry University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine 415.388.8040 mlevy@fpamed.com Dr. Levy attended Durham University, U.K. (1965-66) and is a graduate of Columbia College (A.B. 1967), the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons (M.D. [...]