Opinion ID: 3051091
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: AKA-Ferguson-LT Enterprise

Text: Defendants AKA, Ferguson, and LT formed an enterprise (the “AKAFerguson-LT enterprise”) to (1) use defendant LT’s fraudulently procured SBE certification; (2) allow defendant AKA, as prime contractor, to receive SBE bid preferences based on defendant LT’s presence as defendant AKA’s subcontractor; and (3) win construction contract awards from the County for the mutual benefit of all three defendants. In the AKA-Ferguson-LT enterprise, defendant LT was a mere conduit who performed no commercially useful business function. As such, defendant LT was ineligible for SBE status. The defendants executed their fraudulent scheme by listing defendant LT as an SBE subcontractor on defendant AKA’s construction contract bids to the County. The defendants used the United States mail to accomplish its fraudulent scheme. The County relied on the defendants’ representation that defendant LT was a certified SBE and awarded a construction contract to defendant AKA. Defendant LT’s SBE certification gave the defendants the benefits of the County’s SBE Program, including the 10% bidding advantage. As a result of this 10% SBE advantage, the County awarded defendant AKA a construction contract. If the defendants had not represented that defendant LT was a certified SBE, the County 6 Case: 13-13284 Date Filed: 02/07/2014 Page: 7 of 18 would have awarded this contract to the prime contractor for whom plaintiff Corcel submitted its subcontract bid. Thus, the defendants’ scheme caused plaintiff Corcel to lose the related subcontract.