Hillbilly’s BBQ owner federal lawsuit refers to a major legal case involving Bobby Gerald Duncan, the proprietor of Hillbilly’s Barbeque and Steaks, a well-known restaurant in Gaston County, North Carolina. The litigation revolves around allegations that Duncan misused federal COVID-19 pandemic relief funds intended to support small businesses struggling during the health crisis. Filed and settled in early 2025, this lawsuit highlights critical issues of financial misconduct, federal loan program oversight, and accountability in the distribution and use of government aid.
Background and Origins of Hillbilly’s BBQ Owner Federal Lawsuit
Hillbilly’s BBQ owner Bobby Gerald Duncan received pandemic relief funds exceeding $762,000 through the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program and two Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans. These federally backed loans were designed to provide payroll and operating support to small businesses severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, federal authorities alleged that Duncan knowingly misappropriated significant portions of these funds for personal benefit rather than legitimate business expenses, triggering an investigation and subsequent lawsuit.
Key to the allegations was Duncan’s transfer of $100,000 into a personal “Vacation Account,” reflecting a diversion of funds meant for business operations. Additionally, Duncan sought to help a friend illegitimately boost their credit score to qualify for another Small Business Administration (SBA) loan. When this effort failed, Duncan allegedly purchased a FedEx business for $750,000 using capital linked to the barbecue restaurant’s federal relief funds, further fueling accusations of financial impropriety.
Legal Claims and Federal Allegations in Hillbilly’s BBQ Owner Lawsuit
- False Statements and Fraud: The lawsuit alleges that Duncan knowingly made false or misleading statements to obtain pandemic relief loans under false pretenses, violating federal statutes designed to prevent fraud in aid programs.
- Misuse of Government Funds: Authorities contend that pandemic relief funds were diverted from their intended purpose of supporting business payroll and operations to personal expenses and unrelated business ventures.
- Failure to Comply with Loan Requirements: The case accuses Duncan of failing to adhere to terms and conditions governing the use of EIDL and PPP loans, including reporting and accounting obligations.
Settlement and Financial Resolution in Hillbilly’s BBQ Owner Lawsuit
In April 2025, Duncan and his company DE & E Foods, Inc., which operates Hillbilly’s Barbeque and Steaks, agreed to settle the federal lawsuit by paying over $1.5 million. The settlement covered restitution for misused pandemic relief funds and penalties associated with the alleged fraudulent activity. The swift settlement came shortly after the lawsuit filing, signaling acknowledgment of the seriousness of the accusations and an effort to resolve the matter without protracted litigation.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office emphasized that pandemic relief funds were intended as a critical lifeline to small businesses struggling to survive the economic fallout of COVID-19, and misappropriation of those funds threatens the effectiveness and fairness of such programs. The settlement serves both as a recoupment of misused taxpayer dollars and a deterrent against future similar abuses.
Impact and Broader Implications of Hillbilly’s BBQ Owner Federal Lawsuit
This federal lawsuit against the Hillbilly’s BBQ owner underscores the rigorous oversight and enforcement actions the government has pursued to ensure proper use of pandemic relief programs like PPP and EIDL. It sends a clear message that misusing these vital funds, particularly during a public health emergency, will result in significant legal consequences including substantial financial penalties.
The case also contributes to broader national efforts to maintain integrity and accountability in the distribution of federal aid, assuring that funds reach intended recipients and are used for authorized business purposes. With many small businesses relying heavily on such programs, preserving trust in these mechanisms remains a key governmental priority.
Frequently Asked Questions About Hillbilly’s BBQ Owner Federal Lawsuit
What was the cause of the lawsuit against Hillbilly’s BBQ owner?
The lawsuit arose from allegations that owner Bobby Gerald Duncan misused over $762,000 in federal COVID-19 pandemic relief loans for personal expenses and unrelated business acquisitions instead of legitimate business needs.
How much did Duncan settle for in the federal case?
Duncan agreed to pay over $1.5 million to settle the lawsuit, which included restitution and penalties for the misappropriated pandemic relief funds.
What specific actions constituted misuse of funds?
Misuse included transferring $100,000 to a personal vacation account, attempting to boost a friend’s credit to obtain additional SBA loans, and purchasing a FedEx business with pandemic loan money.
What programs were involved in the lawsuit?
The Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program and Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans were the federal aid mechanisms implicated in the case.
What are the broader lessons from this lawsuit?
The case highlights the importance of transparency, compliance, and proper use of government relief funds, stressing that fraudulent use during emergencies invites substantial legal and financial consequences.
Conclusion
Hillbilly’s BBQ owner federal lawsuit illustrates the serious legal repercussions faced by businesses and individuals who misuse government pandemic relief programs. Bobby Gerald Duncan’s settlement reinforces the federal government’s commitment to policing the appropriate use of public funds during times of crisis and deterring fraudulent activities. The resolution of this case serves as a crucial reminder to business owners nationwide about the responsibilities tied to accepting federal aid and the potential consequences of failing to adhere to program rules.
As pandemic-related legal actions continue across the country, this case will remain a notable example of enforcement efforts aimed at safeguarding taxpayer investments and ensuring that emergency aid fulfills its intended purpose: helping businesses survive and protect jobs during unprecedented economic disruption.
