CT-based Otis Elevator agrees to pay $616K to resolve False Claims Act allegation in Tennessee
Otis Elevator Company has agreed to pay more than $500,000 to resolve allegations tied to the False Claims Act.
The settlement was announced Friday by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Under the terms of the settlement, Otis will pay the government $616,987, federal officials said.
Otis, which is headquartered in Farmington, agreed to the settlement to resolve allegations related to invoices for preventive maintenance services submitted to the Tennessee Valley Authority 'that were not rendered pursuant to the terms of a contract,' federal authorities said.
'A contractor, like Otis, has an obligation to submit invoices and seek reimbursement solely for work and services that have been performed as claimed,' U.S. Attorney Francis M. Hamilton III for the Eastern District of Tennessee said in a statement. 'This settlement with Otis demonstrates that the United States Attorney's Office and federal partners like TVA's Office of the Inspector General are using all tools available to address fraud, waste and abuse and protect public funds.'
The investigation focused on an August 2017 contract between Otis and TVA. Authorities contend that the contract required Otis to provide turnkey modernization and specified monthly preventative maintenance services related to certain elevators in the TVA Knoxville Office Complex. Federal officials said 'certain civil claims' against Otis arose from its performance of the contract.
'Specifically, the United States contended that Otis submitted false claims for payment to TVA for preventive maintenance services that were not rendered,' the U.S. Attorney's Office wrote in a statement
The settlement was the result of a coordinated effort between the U.S. Attorney's Office and the TVA Office of the Inspector General – Office of Investigations (TVA-OIG).
'The TVA Office of the Inspector General is committed to identifying and investigating instances where vendors fail to fulfill contractual obligations as well as false claims and overpayments that negatively impact ratepayers throughout the Tennessee Valley. We would like to thank the United States Attorney's Office for their dedicated support of such efforts,' Assistant Inspector General, Investigations D. Eric Beals of the Tennessee Valley Authority Office of Inspector General, said in a statement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
8 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Political violence is threaded through recent US history. The motives and justifications vary
The assassination of one Democratic Minnesota state lawmaker and her husband, and the shooting of another lawmaker and his wife at their homes, is just the latest addition to a long and unsettling roll call of political violence in the United States. The list, in the past two months alone: the killing of two Israeli embassy staffers in Washington, D.C. The firebombing of a Colorado march calling for the release of Israeli hostages, and the firebombing of the official residence of Pennsylvania's governor — on a Jewish holiday while he and his family were inside. And here's just a sampling of some other disturbing attacks before that — the assassination of a health care executive on the streets of New York City late last year, the attempted assassination of Donald Trump in small-town Pennsylvania during his presidential campaign last year, the 2022 attack on the husband of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi by a believer in right-wing conspiracy theories, and the 2017 shooting by a liberal gunman at a GOP practice for the congressional softball game. 'We've entered into this especially scary time in the country where it feels the sort of norms and rhetoric and rules that would tamp down on violence have been lifted,' said Matt Dallek, a political scientist at Georgetown University who studies extremism. 'A lot of people are receiving signals from the culture.' Politics behind both individual shootings and massacres Politics have also driven large-scale massacres. Gunmen who killed 11 worshippers at a synagogue in Pittsburgh in 2018, 23 shoppers at a heavily Latino Walmart in El Paso in 2019 and 10 Black people at a Buffalo grocery store in 2022 each cited the conspiracy theory that a secret cabal of Jews were trying to replace white people with people of color. That has become a staple on parts of the right that support Trump's push to limit immigration. The Anti-Defamation League found that from 2022 through 2024, all of the 61 political killings in the United States were committed by right-wing extremists. That changed on the first day of 2025, when a Texas man flying the flag of the Islamic State group killed 14 people by driving his truck through a crowded New Orleans street before being fatally shot by police. 'You're seeing acts of violence from all different ideologies,' said Jacob Ware, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who researches terrorism. 'It feels more random and chaotic and more frequent.' The United States has a long and grim history of political violence, from presidential assassinations dating back to the killing of President Abraham Lincoln to lynchings and violence aimed at Black people in the South to the 1954 shooting inside Congress by four Puerto Rican nationalists. Experts say the past few years, however, have likely reached a level not seen since the tumultuous days of the 1960s and 1970s, when icons like Martin Luther King, Jr., John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X and Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated. Ware noted that the most recent surge comes after the new Trump administration has shuttered units that focus on investigating white supremacist extremism and pushed federal law enforcement to spend less time on anti-terrorism and more on detaining people who are in the country illegally. 'We're at the point, after these six weeks, where we have to ask about how effectively the Trump administration is combating terrorism,' Ware said. Of course, one of Trump's first acts in office was to pardon those involved in the largest act of domestic political violence this century — the Jan. 6, 2021 assault on the U.S. Capitol, intended to prevent Congress from certifying Trump's 2020 election loss. Those pardons broadcast a signal to would-be extremists on either side of the political debate, Dallek said: 'They sent a very strong message that violence, as long as you're a Trump supporter, will be permitted and may be rewarded.' Ideologies aren't always aligned — or coherent Often, those who engage in political violence don't have clearly defined ideologies that easily map onto the country's partisan divides. A man who died after he detonated a car bomb outside a Palm Springs fertility clinic last month left writings urging people not to procreate and expressed what the FBI called 'nihilistic ideations.' But, like clockwork, each political attack seems to inspire partisans to find evidence the attacker is on the other side. Little was known about the man police identified as a suspect in the Minnesota attacks, 57-year-old Vance Boelter. Authorities say they found a list of other apparent targets that included other Democratic officials, abortion clinics and abortion rights advocates, as well as fliers for the day's anti-Trump parades. Conservatives online seized on the fliers — and the fact that Boetler had apparently once been appointed to a state workforce development board by Democratic Gov. Tim Walz — to claim the suspect must be a liberal. 'The far left is murderously violent,' billionaire Elon Musk posted on his social media site, X. It was reminiscent of the fallout from the attack on Paul Pelosi, the former House speaker's then-82-year-old husband, who was seriously injured by a man wielding a hammer. Right-wing figures theorized the assailant was a secret lover rather than what authorities said he was: a believer in pro-Trump conspiracy theories who broke into the Pelosi home echoing Jan. 6 rioters who broke into the Capitol by saying: 'Where is Nancy?!' On Saturday, Nancy Pelosi posted a statement on X decrying the Minnesota attack. 'All of us must remember that it's not only the act of violence, but also the reaction to it, that can normalize it,' she wrote. Trump had mocked the Pelosis after the 2022 attack, but on Saturday he joined in the official bipartisan condemnation of the Minnesota shootings, calling them 'horrific violence.' The president has, however, consistently broken new ground with his bellicose rhetoric towards his political opponents, who he routinely calls 'sick' and 'evil,' and has talked repeatedly about how violence is needed to quell protests. The Minnesota attack occurred after Trump took the extraordinary step of mobilizing the military to try to control protests against his administration's immigration operations in Los Angeles during the past week, when he pledged to 'HIT' disrespectful protesters and warned of a 'migrant invasion' of the city. Dallek said Trump has been 'both a victim and an accelerant' of the charged, dehumanizing political rhetoric that is flooding the country. 'It feels as if the extremists are in the saddle,' he said, 'and the extremists are the ones driving our rhetoric and politics.'
Forbes
18 minutes ago
- Forbes
What Are Climate Investors Saying About The State Of The Industry?
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows It's probably safe to say that 2025 has been an interesting year for climate investors everywhere. Especially in the United States. In many ways, we haven't seen the sector face these kinds of headwinds – energy policy, trade policy, macroeconomic uncertainty – in many years. The good folks at CTVC recently released a poll of around 100 climate investors (predominantly venture capitalists and private equity investors), which was quite illuminating. It provides a snapshot of a sector that is still trying to grapple with the challenges. Here are some insights I took away from the survey results: 1. The real pain hasn't been truly felt yet A plurality of those surveyed expect more bankruptcies in the sector, even among companies with strong underlying fundamentals. This reflects how difficult it is right now to raise capital for cash-burning companies in the sector – which is pretty much most venture-backed startups, by design. What I hear in talking with my investor peers out there is that many of them are 'pencils down' for the moment. They are tending to their existing portfolios and husbanding their capital reserves. Partly this may reflect a desire to have dry powder for when the market stabilizes and bargains will be available. But mostly it seems to indicate that VC/PE investors expect 2025 to be a really tough market for raising new capital into their own funds; plus they see their existing investments having a rough time of it, and so they don't want to spend what capital they have left on new bets. Of course, the vicious cycle of this is that when investors aren't writing new checks, they don't support any growing valuations and acquisitions of other investors' portfolio companies, which then means further reduced exit activity and lower valuations across the sector. And one of the factors that has held back fundraising for all PE/VC sectors recently has been institutional investors' frustrations at the lack of liquidity and returns, because of the lack of exits. And that was before this climate sectoral downturn. On the plus side, for the few firms out there still writing checks into new investments, they have their pick of the litter right now. 2. That said, the root causes of the pain probably start to fade in 2H25 Those surveyed pointed to policy uncertainty as by far the most meaningful headwind right now. A lot of this is tied up in the US federal governments' efforts to roll back key provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act. The target date for passage of the major rollback bill is the Fourth of July. While no one expects that target date to realistically be met, I am hearing from policymakers that they do think it'll have to pass in some form before the end of the summer. Whether it's good news or bad news, at least it will then be crystalized and investors and entrepreneurs will be able to react accordingly. Right now it's simply the uncertainty that's a killer for investor appetites. To be clear, these next three and a half years will almost certainly see continued significant uncertainty and political attacks on renewables and climate solutions. That's what happened eight years ago, so we can expect it this time soon. But what also happened eight years ago was that investments into climate solutions actually grew anyway. The macro theses around climate solutions and adoption of new technologies by huge markets (energy, food, water, waste, transportation) aren't going away. So as soon as this period of acute uncertainty fades back into a dull roar upon final passage of the major federal bill, we can expect check-writing to become more active again. I wrote about this a couple of months ago, and while the attacks on renewables and climate solutions have been even more vindictive and effective than I initially expected, I still personally expect to see dealmaking activity come back in force by year-end. 3. The 'Missing Middle' is still… missing After last year's New York Climate Week, I wrote about how everyone was talking about 'The Missing Middle' – while still managing to disagree about what it actually meant. For some it meant Series B/Cs, for some it mean first-of-a-kind (FOAK) project finance, and for yet others like myself it means the true bridge between FOAKs and when mainstream infrastructure is prepared to back a new project developer and their new solution, and carry them into the broader market at scale. Regardless of which definition investors favor, they're all still very much pain points, according to this survey. And now the team at CTVC have taken it one step further, identifying what they describe as a 'missing middle within the missing middle', for projects that cost somewhere between $45-100M. This makes sense, because below that level it's more feasible for early project deployments to be funded by some combination of venture / growth capital and non-dilutive capital, and above $100M even an early stage project can at least fit the preferred check size of larger infrastructure and PE firms. The fact remains that there are just simply too few investors with both the appetite and the know-how needed to effectively partner with less-mature project developers on distributed infrastructure projects. It's a multidisciplinary challenge requiring a mix of skillsets that few investment firms have, and an awkward deal size. And so I don't personally expect this market gap to be sufficiently filled anytime soon, even if the overall conditions for the sector do improve. As an industry, we just simply need more firms that know how to do this. 4. Is now the time to be a contrarian? Notably, despite the negative headwinds especially hitting the renewables subsector right now, that was still the most popular area for the investors surveyed. Why? Because that's what has always been the most popular area, I suppose. But there are very interesting yet less-favored areas like waste-to-value, climate adaptation and resilience, and yes even transportation. And the underlying fundamentals for those subsectors remain strong. For example, while the IRA rollback effort will inevitably mean a significant reduction in U.S. federal support for electric vehicles, nevertheless the adoption of EVs continued in Q1 even despite a terrible quarter for the U.S.'s leading brand (Tesla). Despite all the negative headlines, the electrification of transportation is still happening – quite often for simple economic reasons, not 'green' ones. So is now the time to be a contrarian investor and to target those less-favored opportunities where the long term shifts remain quite clear? To take advantage of the timidity of more headlines-influenced investors and to step in before the subsectoral rebounds become obvious to all? It would take a bold VC or private equity investor to purposefully take such a stance. But the survey results do suggest it's an available strategy, at least. Overall, as we near the halfway point of 2025, it's been one of the toughest half-years for U.S. climate investors and their portfolios that I can remember in my career. And most of this is unnecessary self-inflicted harm. There will absolutely end up being long-term, tragic damage done to the U.S. economy because of what we are seeing here in 2025. But there are also signs of resilience, and some hope that there will be new green shoots of growth later in the year.
New York Times
18 minutes ago
- New York Times
Minnesota Suspect Served on State Board With One of the Victims
The man suspected of shooting two Democratic state lawmakers in Minnesota early on Saturday had served on a state board with one of the victims, records show. The suspect identified by the authorities, Vance Boelter, 57, was appointed several times by Minnesota governors to the Workforce Development Board, where he served with State Senator John A. Hoffman, who was shot and survived. Mr. Boelter and Senator Hoffman attended a virtual meeting together in 2022 for a discussion about the job market in the aftermath of the coronavirus pandemic, minutes from the meeting show. Drew Evans, the superintendent of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, said investigators did not yet know how well the two knew each other, if at all. Mr. Boelter was appointed to the board in 2016 by Mark Dayton, a Democrat who was then the governor. More recently, he was appointed by Gov. Tim Walz, also a Democrat. The board has 41 members who are appointed by the governor, and its goal is to improve business development in the state. A state report in 2016 listed Mr. Boelter's political affiliation as 'none or other,' and another report in 2020 listed him as having 'no party preference.' Voters do not declare political affiliation when they register in Minnesota. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
