COMPLAINT

JURISDICTION - This action arises under 31 U.S.C. 3729 as hereinafter more fullyappears and is brought as a Qui Tam action under 31 U.S.C. 3730.Defendant Aerospatiale Helicopter Corporation has its principal place of business in the Northern District of Texas. Defendant Textron Lycoming Corporation is successor to AVCO Lycoming Corporation and transacts business in the Northern District of Texas. Acts proscribed by 31 U.S.C. 3729 and complained of herein were committed by the Defendants in the (End of Page 1) Northern District of Texas. Jurisdiction and Venue are properly set under 31 U.S.C. 3732 in the Northern District of Texas.

FACT ALLEGATIONS - In the summer of 1983 Robert C. Ballew, Relator and Qui Tam Plaintiff and Plaintiff per se herein, was employed as a senior buyer for Defendant Aerospatiale Helicopter Corporation (hereinafter AHC) engaging primarily in commercial contracts. After a period of absence Relator was contacted by AHC and rehired in June of 1986 as a procurement agent for certain subcontracts under a prime ccontract with the government for construction of approximately 100 helicopters for the United States Coast Guard. Included in the HH-65A SRR systems contemplated by the contract were hardware, software and services and among the components under Relator's purview were the TEXTRON Lycoming (hereinafter Textron) LTS101-750 series gas turbine engines with associated spare parts and supporting documents.

Early on, Relator became aware that the engine, as manufactured and installed, was grossly deficient in performance, and he participated in intercompany discussions wherein Textron generally denied major defects although possible remedies for some problems were discussed. About two months after Relator assumed his new responsibilities he discovered that part numbers in the "illustrated parts catalog" did not (End of Page 2) match the numbers for corresponding parts shown on the "master bill of materials". Further, he discovered that "alternate parts" were being incorporated in the production engines while the parts being supplemented were being discontinued and, thus, changes were being made without the knowledge or approval of AHC or the Coast Guard. Upon inquiry to Defendant Textron, Relator was told that approval had been given by AHC which Relator discovered to be partially true in some instances but false in others. The changes made had not been incorporated in supporting documentation such as spares provisioning documents, repair manuals and training manuals; Coast Guard approval had not been secured as required by the contract documents and by federal regulations.

By late July of 1986 Relator was making inquiries and informing AHC personnel of problems inherent in the condoning of unknown and undocumented changes in power plant configuration. Subsequently, Relator, as the responsible party for AHC, refused to sign a contract for repair prior to conversion of Coast Guard owned engines because the same could and would constitute certification of property configured in an unknown way and hence signing without knowing that the information contained in the receipt was true. Some months later, repaired and converted engines were returned to AHC without the "as built" list of parts as required by the contract (as was the standard procedure of Textron) and the engines were "red tagged" as non-conforming (End of Page 3)by AHC inspectors in coordination with Relator. AHC management caused the red tags to be removed and installed some of the same in helicopters which were delivered to the Coast Guard as complying with contract requirements and specifications when, in fact, AHC had reason to know that the equipment so delivered did not comply and was of unknown and unapproved configuration.

At various times Textron took various and contradictory positions with respect to the engine configuration, missing parts lists, and defective performance. Early it represented that approvals had been obtained; later, it maintained that approvals weren't required. At one time it took the position that it was unaware of the national defense character of the subcontract and that AHC was just another commercial account; this position was apparently abandoned when Relator indicated an insistence upon a corresponding commercial warranty in return for commercial list price. At one meeting Textron threatened to just "close down the line."

Starting with a memorandum written by Relator on May 12, 1987,and culminating with a memorandum dated July 17, 1987, from the Director of Materials to the Vice President of Administration for AHC, Relator pursued compliance, corrective action, and full disclosure to the government. Upon a contrary decision by AHC, the July 17 memorandum was shredded, and Relator was directed on July 23, 1987, to accept future engines without adequate configuration information; Relator advised that (End of Page 4)he intended to act lawfully and did not intend to do anything on behalf of the company which he considered to be false or fraudulent or a violation of the False Claims Act or any other applicable law or regulation extant.

On August 19, 1987, Relator voluntarily commenced disclosure to appropriate federal authorities; AHC was advised by Relator of his actions, and, in this connection, AHC advised the Coast Guard of Relator's disclosures on August 24.

Relator would show that by failing and refusing to make open and complete disclosure of engine defects and corrective action to be implemented Textron has effectively prevented necessary enhancement of engine performance and rendered field maintenance to the aircraft for combat readiness purposes a practical impossibility; concealment of changes has enshrouded means of determining which manuals or spare parts are applicable to which engines on which aircraft. By failure to comply with contract requirements and by covering up its own knowledge of a deception in the nature and value of property sold and billed to the United States Government, AHC yielded to the threats of Textron and became a participant in the deception.

On August 25, 1987, Ballew was relieved of all former duties and has, since that date, been subjected by AHC to systematic isolation, humiliation and abuse. As a consequence and proximate result oftension, stress and physical exertion imposed upon him by AHC in retaliation for his disclosures as (End of Page 5)aforesaid, Ballew, though otherwise and historically of good health, suffered a myocardial infarction on September 1, 1987. In addition to severe pain and anguish sustained by Ballew on and since that date by this unlawfully induced physical impairment, Ballew has suffered a substantial and compensable reduction in expectancy and quality of life for which he should be made whole as provided by law.

CLAIMS - Plaintiffs claim that Defendants acting separately and in concert have "knowingly" presented to "an officer ... of the United States Government ... a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval" in violation of 31 U.S.C. 3729 (a) (1),(2) and (3), and Defendants are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs for the damages and penalties set forth therein.

Plaintiffs claim that Defendants acting separately and in concert and with fraudulent intent made and delivered documents "certifying receipt of property ... to be used by the Government... without completely knowing that the information on the receipt is true "in violation of 31 U.S.C. 3729 (a) (5) and are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs for the damages and penalties set forth therein.(End of Page 6)

Plaintiff Ballew claims special damages and compensation from Defendant AHC for acts proscribed by 31 U.S.C. 3730 (h) against Ballew as an employee.

DEMANDS

Wherefore, Plaintiffs demand:

1. That Defendants be required to pay to Plaintiffs the sum of $10,000 plus 3 times the excess of costs of engines actually required on account of defective performance over costs contractually guaranteed, said excess being $360,000,000.

2. That, in addition, Defendants be required to pay to Plaintiffs 3 times the excess of costs of spare parts and services actually required on account of Defendants' failure to comply with contractual obligations or failure to disclose non compliance over costs actually contemplated by contract, said excess being unknown but estimated as equal to excess engine costs.

3. In the alternative, that Defendants be required to pay Plaintiffs $10,000 plus 3 times the excess cost of re-engining all contracted aircraft plus 3 time the excess cost of spare parts and services plus 3 times the excess cost of interim maintenance and replacement and services.

4. That Defendant AHC be required to pay to Plaintiff Ballew $1,500,000 as compensation and damages and relief as set forth under 31 U.S.C.Sec. 3730 (h).

5. That, in addition, Plaintiffs be awarded costs and reasonable attorney's fees and such other and further relief as may be provided by law.

Respectfully submitted,

(Signature)
James Henley Morgan
810 Houston Street Ste. 1240
Fort Worth, TX 76102
817/332-5616
Bar #14445000
Attorney for Plaintiffs