Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Aidan Forsyth, er rel. United States of America v. Greenland LA Metropolis Hotel Development LLC, Greenland US Management LLC, and Greenland LA Metropolis Development III

Date: 12-11-2025

Case Number: 24-cv-01231

Judge: Byron B. Conway

Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (Milwaukee County)

Plaintiff's Attorney: United States District Attorney's Office

and

Click Here For The Best Milwauee Qui Tam Lawyer Directory


Defendant's Attorney: Not Available

Description:
Milwuakee, Wisconsin qui tam lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sue on a False Claims Act Violation theory.

The Greenland USA Entities own and develop real estate projects and are part of a large multinational corporation ultimately owned by the Greenland Holding Group Company Limited, a Chinese company with tens of thousands of employees worldwide.

In applying for their PPP loans, the Greenland USA Entities certified that they were eligible for the PPP. The United States alleges that the Greenland USA Entities were not eligible for their first- or second-round PPP loans because they were affiliated with other companies in the United States and China, and together with their affiliates across the globe, the Greenland USA Entities employed more individuals than permitted by SBA’s size standard for their industry. Additionally, the United States alleges that the Greenland USA Entities were not eligible for their second-round PPP loans because they are more than 20 percent owned by entities created and organized in the People’s Republic of China.

“Congress created the PPP to help American small businesses during the pandemic, not to fund large Chinese-owned corporations. Here, however, the defendants are alleged to have provided false information to the SBA to obtain government funds to which they were not entitled,” said U.S. Attorney Brad D. Schimel. “This settlement demonstrates that the U.S. Attorney’s Office takes seriously its obligation to combat fraud and protect American taxpayers.”

The civil settlement includes the resolution of claims brought under the qui tam or whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act, which permit private parties to file an action on behalf of the United States and receive a portion of any recovery. This settlement resolves claims in two related qui tam lawsuits filed by GNGH2 Inc. and Aidan Forsyth. In connection with the settlement, GNGH2 Inc. will receive $697,757.80 and Forsyth will receive $33,470.53.

The resolution obtained in this matter was the result of a coordinated effort between the Justice Department’s Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, Fraud Section, and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, with assistance from the SBA’s Office of General Counsel and Office of the Inspector General.

Trial Attorney Lindsey Roberts of the Civil Division and Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Carter for the Eastern District of Wisconsin handled the matter.
Outcome:
The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only. There has been no determination of liability.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:

About This Case

What was the outcome of Aidan Forsyth, er rel. United States of America v. Greenl...?

The outcome was: The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only. There has been no determination of liability.

Which court heard Aidan Forsyth, er rel. United States of America v. Greenl...?

This case was heard in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (Milwaukee County), WI. The presiding judge was Byron B. Conway.

Who were the attorneys in Aidan Forsyth, er rel. United States of America v. Greenl...?

Plaintiff's attorney: United States District Attorney's Office and Click Here For The Best Milwauee Qui Tam Lawyer Directory. Defendant's attorney: Not Available.

When was Aidan Forsyth, er rel. United States of America v. Greenl... decided?

This case was decided on December 11, 2025.