501(c)(4) HOA to Pay Over $2M to Resolve FCA Allegations in Connection with PPP Loan
Client Alert | 2 min read | 01.05.24
The San Diego Union-Tribune reports that a homeowners association (HOA) in California has reached an agreement with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to resolve allegations that the HOA obtained approximately $1.5 million in loans through the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) that the HOA was not entitled to receive due to its status as a 501(c)(4) organization. The HOA reportedly will pay $2,037,451 to resolve the allegations. Of that amount, $244,494 will go to Wade Riner—the relator who initiated the action by filing a complaint under seal pursuant to the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act (FCA). According to the Tribune’s reporting, Riner has filed dozens of similar FCA suits across the country.
Indeed, this settlement appears to be just the tip of the iceberg. In the past few months, three other FCA complaints filed by Riner have come out from under seal, naming some 75 different 501(c)(4) organizations as defendants. In one of the cases, the DOJ elected to intervene as to four of the named defendants although the settlement amount is not yet public.
In prior alerts (see here and here), we have discussed how serial relators have been a defining feature of qui tam enforcement in cases alleging COVID-19 relief fraud. These frequent filers have brought complaints based upon publicly available information about PPP loan recipients. Prior complaints by serial relators have focused on recipients that received duplicate PPP loans or recipients that failed to comply with some of the more technical requirements associated with the second round of PPP funding. In light of the recently unsealed complaints, it is clear that 501(c)(4) entities—such as private clubs and HOAs—are among the loan recipients now squarely in the crosshairs of serial relators.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 02.27.26
The U.S. Supreme Court’s February 20, 2026, opinion in Learning Resources. v. Trump (decided with Trump v. V.O.S. Selections), holding that the President lacks authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), is notable for many reasons — including its practical impact on the many U.S. companies who paid steep tariffs on global imports and may now be able to recover by filing suit before the Court of International Trade (CIT). That possibility and the key reasons for the High Court’s decision are discussed in our recent alert on this momentous decision.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 02.27.26
New Jersey Expands FLA Protections Effective July 2026: What Employers Need to Know
Client Alert | 3 min read | 02.26.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 02.26.26



