IRFIELD county il Defendant(s) STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF Ferns ) ) {eDUINOA GOODMAN 2017, ) CIVIL ACTION COVERSHEET Piatti! ) Fay ) ar___-cp-40-_ 300 d ) ) ) SC Bar #, Telephone #6) 5208 Fax # S056 Submitted By: Cov et ‘Address: 219 Reset enon S40 E-mail: aaa NOTE: The coversheet and information contained herein neither replaces nor supplemcns the ing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law. ‘This form is required forthe ue ofthe Clerk of Court forthe purpos of docketing. It must be filed oat completely, signed, and dated A copy ofthis coversheet must be served on the defendant(s) along with the Summons and Complaiat. DOCKETING INFORMATION (Check all chat apply) +1 Action is Judgment/Settlement do not complete SURY TRIAL demanded in complaint D7 NON-JURY TRIAL demanded in complaint. This case is subject to ARBITRATION pursuant to the Court Annexed Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules. [This case is subject to MEDIATION pursuant tothe Court Annexed Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules. This case is exempt from ADR. (Proof of ADR/Exemption Attached) NATURE OF ACTION (Check One Box Below) ues) ta-rta ayte ey hnay_gy oo caftiny — atectcinttite ewsrmtnin tre Debt Coltection (110) D__ Legal Malpractice (210) Motor Vehicle Accident (320) Condemnation (410) CG General (130) Medical Malpractice (220) Cl Premises Liabitity (330), D1 Foreclosure (420) Oy Dakeetnarares — reeuiavan O ocie B Rehr 2 Recusegom =O ih oe Soe Foe | ee Waray (165) Gace Asmivtatey%) 1D ikng Cote Votan 460) pone aa oe aot eae 3 ee Se ee noe 5 amma Mamet enters D1 Mandamus (520) TO __Iudicial Review (810). D Foreign Judgment (710) O Magistrate-Civil (910) 3 keen, Mette Brome 2 Maen a a lr a memeietemn = seein” Ol ean 2 cette Beem Gl heen a gio 8 aera Toews. Merc ae 2 te, stew poe a ere em | A ee Bete carrera a eee a ey Beara tlt lesen lle i Bee el ete enon te Oo tana a See 2 time o. B00 cee nates elo 1 ‘Submitting Party Signature: Note: Frivolous civil proceedings may be subject to sanctions pursuant fo SCRCP, Rule 1, and the South Carolina Frivolous Civil Proceedings Sanctions Act, S.C. Code Ann. §15-36-10 et. sq. SCCA /234 (03/2016) Page 1 of 2Effective January 1, 2016, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is mandatory in all counties, pursuant to Supreme Court Order dated November 12, 2015. SUPREME COURT RULES REQUIRE THE SUBMISSION OF ALL CIVIL CASES TO AN ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS, UNLESS OTHERWISE EXEMPT. Pursuant to the ADR Rules, you are required to take the following action(s): 1, The parties shall select a neutral and file a “Proof of ADR” form on or by the 210 day of the filing of this action. If the parties have not selected a neutral within 210 days, the Clerk of Court shall then appoint a primary and secondary mediator from the current roster on a rotating basis from among those m agreeing to accept cases in the county in which the action has been filed, 2. The initial ADR conference must be held within 300 days after the filing of the action. 3. Pre-suit medical malpractice mediations required by S.C. Code §15-79-125 shall be held not later than 120 days after all defendants are served with the “Notice of Intent to File Suit” or as the court directs. 4. Cases are exempt from ADR only upon the following grounds: Special proceeding, or actions secking extraordinary relief such as mandamus, habeas corpus, or prohibition; Requests for temporary relief; Appeals Post Conviction relief matters; Contempt of Court proceedings; 12h Wd 82 9n¥ LIOR Forfeiture proceedings brought by governmental entities; Mortgage foreclosures; and Cases that have been previously subjected to an ADR conference, unless otherwise required by Rule 3 or by statute, 5. In cases not subject to ADR, the Chief Judge for Administrative Purposes, upon the motion of the court or of any party, may order a case to mediation 6. Motion of a party to be exempt from payment of neutral fees due to indigency should be filed with the Court within ten (10) days after the ADR conference has been concluded. Please Note: ‘You must comply with the Supreme Court Rules regarding ADR. Failure to do so may affect your ease or may result in sanctions. SCCA / 234 (03/2016) Page 2 of 2STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COUNTY OF FAIRFIELD CASE NO: 2017-CP-. EDWINDA GOODMAN, BOBBY LEE JONES, BOBBY CUNNINGHAM, DARYL DAVIS, PHILLIP COOPER, KARLA. SUMMONS COOPER, JACKIE MINCEY, DEAN M. PERRY, STEVE LAWSON, FREDDIE LAWSON INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED PLAINTIFFS Plaintiffs, sya SCANA CORPORATION AND SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY ian kd 82 on LOd Defendants. TO ALL OF THE NAMED DEFENDANTS: YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to answer the complaint in this action, a copy of which is hereby served upon you, and to serve a copy of your answer to the said complaint on the subscriber at their office at Bell Legal Group, LLC, 219 Ridge Street, Georgetown, SC 29440 within thirty (30) days after the service hereof, exclusive of the day of such service; and if you fail to answer the complaint within the time aforesaid, judgment by default will be rendered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC Edward Bell, Esq. 19 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 29440Boi South Carolina lay of August, 2017 (843) 546-2408 Phone (843) 546-9604 Fax ebell@exibelllaw.com Vincent Sheheen, Esq. SAVAGE, ROYALL AND SHEHEEN, LLP. 1111 Church Street Camden, SC 29020 (803) 432-4391 Phone Gregory Michael Galvin, Esq GALVIN LAW GROUP, LLC PO Box 887 Bluffton, South Carolina 29910 (843)227-2231 (888) 362-0714 Fax ‘ggalvin@galvinlaweroup.com Creighton B. Coleman, Esq, COLEMAN & TOLEN, LLC 120 West Washington Street PO Box 1006 ‘Winnsboro, SC 29180 Office: (803) 635-6884 Fax: (803) 635-9228 E-Mail: creighton@colemantolen.comSTATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COUNTY OF FAIRFIELD CIVIL ACTION NO. 2017-CP- EDWINDA GOODMAN, BOBBY LEE JONES, BOBBY CUNNINGHAM, DARYL COMPLAINT DAVIS, PHILLIP COOPER, KARLA COOPER, (CLASS ACTION) JACKIE MINCEY, DEAN M. PERRY, STEVE (Gury Trial Demanded) LAWSON, FREDDIE LAWSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED PLAINTIFFS Plaintiffs, 3 = ws: 3 2 SCANA CORPORATION AND SOUTH 8 CAROLINA ELECTRIC AND GAS = COMPANY = Defendants. S NOW COMES, the Plaintiff, Bobby Lee Jones, Bobby Cunningham, Edwinda Goodman, Daryl Davis, Phillip Cooper, Karla Cooper, Jackie Mincey, Dean M. Perry, Steve Lawson and Freddie Lawson, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated Plaintiffs would respectfully show unto this Court: INTRODUCTION This is an action arising out of failed nuclear plant in Jenkinsville, South Carolina by Defendants South Carolina Electric & Gas (hereinafter “SCE&G”) and SCANA Corporation. Specifically, this action concems the increased billing rates charged to hundreds of thousands of customers, totaling in excess one billion dollars ($1,000,000,000.00), for the sole purpose of constructing the nuclear power plant. On July 31, 2017, Defendant South Carolina Electric & Gas Company announced that it was abandoning the power plant project, but that Defendants will continue to bill its customers the increased charges leaving both Defendants in possession andownership of billions of dollars without fulfilling the promised services to Plaintiffs and hundreds of thousands of other SCE&G customers. PARTIES, VENUE, AND JURSIDICTION 1. Plaintiff, Edwinda Goodman, is and at all relevant times mentioned in this Complaint was, a resident of Fairfield County, South Carolina 2. Plaintiff, Bobby Lee Jones is and at all relevant times mentioned in this Complaint was, a resident of Fairfield County, South Carolina, 3. Plaintiff, Bobby Cunningham is and at all relevant times mentioned in this Complaint was, a resident of Fairfield County, South Carolina, 4, Plaintiff, Daryl Davis is and at all relevant times mentioned in this Complaint was a resident of Fairfield County, South Carolina, 5. Plaintiff, Phillip Cooper, is and at all relevant times mentioned in this Complaint was a resident of Fairfield County, South Carolina. 6. Plaintiff, Karla Cooper, is and at all relevant times mentioned in this Complaint was a resident of Fairfield County, South Carolina. 7. Plaintiff, Jackie Mincey, is and at all relevant times mentioned in this Complaint was a resident of Fairfield County, South Carolina. 8. Plaintiff, Dean M. Perry, is and at all relevant times mentioned in this Complaint was a resident of Fairfield County, South Carolina, 9. Plaintiff, Steve Lawson, is and at all relevant times mentioned in this Complaint was a resident of Fairfield County, South Carolina, 10. Plaintiff, Freddie Lawson, is and at all relevant times mentioned in this Complaint was a resident of Fairfield County, South Carolina.11. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the Defendant, South Carolina Electric and Gas Company is a Company organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of South Carolina, has its principal place of business in the City of Cayce, Lexington County, South Carolina, and maintains a registered office 1703 Laurel Street, Columbia, Richland County, South Carolina. 12. The Plaintiffs Bobby Lee Jones, Bobby Cunningham, Edwinda Goodman, and Daryl Davis purchase power from the Town of Winnsboro, who purchases power directly from SCE&G. 13. The Plaintiffs, Phillip Cooper, Karla Cooper, Jackie Mincey, Dean M. Perry, Steve Lawson and Freddie Lawson purchase their power directly from SCE&G. 14, The Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendant, SCANA Corporation is a Corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of South Carolina, has its principal place of business in the City of Cayce, Lexington County, South Carolina, and maintains a registered office at 1703 Laurel Street, Columbia, Richland County, South Carolina. 15. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendant, SCE&G was at all relevant times herein a subsidiary of SCANA Corporation (collectively referred to with SCE&G as “Defendants”). 16. Defendants provided power in Fairfield County and the Project construction was performed in Fairfield County, thus the majority of the acts and/or omissions complained of in this lawsuit ocurred in Fairfield County, South Carolina and venue is proper. Limitation on the Court’s Jurisdiction 17. Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate all paragraphs into this cause of action. 18. SC Code 58-33-320 provides that no Court of this State shall have jurisdiction to hear or determine any issue, ease, or controversy concerning any matter which was or could have beendetermined in proceeding before the commission under SC Code 58-33-220, et seq. However, SC Code Ann 58-33-320 continues and provides that nothing in Title 58, Chapter 33 shall be construed to abrogate or suspend the right of any individual or corporation not a party to maintain any action which he might otherwise be entitled. 19. SC Code 58-33, et seq. provides the Public Service Commission with the power to disallow the additional capital costs from a project, but does not provide the Public Service Commission (“PSC”) with the power to seek redress for fraud, tort claims, and common law equitable remedies. Further, Title 58, Chapter 15, does not provide the Public Utility Commission with any power to seek a return of any monies recovered from vendors for a failed project. 20. SCANA Corporation was not an applicant before the PSC and as a result claims against SCANA Corporation would not be limited by the Base Load Review Act. 21. The Plaintiff is not seeking to reduce, or change the Base Load Review Act and thus this Court has proper jurisdiction to determine the matter before the court. FACTS 13. SCE&G contracted with customers to provide electrical power to customers in Fairfield County, performed construction of nuclear reactors in Fairfield County and received money from customers in Fairfield County for the construction of the nuclear reactors. 22. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the South Carolina Public Service Authority (hereinafter “Santee Cooper”) is a utility which is owned by the State of South Carolina and had an interest in the Project as well. 23. On May 3, 2007, the South Carolina Legislator passed the Base Load Review Act into law which allowed utilities to adjust rates before the completion of utility projects.24, The Base Load Review Act also allowed the utilities to receive a Ten Percent (10%) commission on the gross amount of any project as profit and to bill rate payers before the completion of any power plants. 25. The Defendants sought funds from the Plaintiffs for the construction of Two (2) Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear power plants in Jenkinsville, South Carolina, Fairfield County which is commonly known as the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station (the “Project”. 26. The Project was scheduled to begin generating power in the year 2020, 27. The Project was a joint effort between Santee Cooper and SCANA with an ownership interest of 45% and 55%, respectively. 28. Upon information and belief, in March 2009, the Defendants estimated that SCANA’s share of the cost for the nuclear project would be $ 6.3 billion dollars. 29. Santee Cooper’s original cost estimate for its 45% share of the Project was 5.12 billion dollars. 30. Defendants and Santee Cooper contracted with Westinghouse Electric Corporation (hereinafter “Westinghouse”) to build the two (2) nuclear power plants. 31. In November 2016, Santee Cooper estimated that the cost of the plant would rise from $5.12 billion to $6.2 billion and SCANA estimated that its cost would rise to 7.7 billion dollars. 32. Upon information and belief, the Plaintiffs, have paid for the cost of the construction of the Project and continue to pay for the costs of the Project. 33. Upon information and belief, the Project amounted to Eighteen Percent (18%) of SCANA’s on going customer bills.34. Upon information and belief, the Defendants knew years before abandoning the Project that the Project was: a. not feasible; b. not subject to a detailed construction schedule; €. not a good investment of the ratepayer’s money; 4d. over budget; and e. failing. 35. Upon information and belief, Defendants and its employees, and/or consultants, and/or experts made misrepresentations, false statements, and misstatements to the PSC regarding the health of the Project and the current progress when Defendants knew, or should have known that the Project was not progressing as planned, nor would it be completed on time or within the projected budget. 36. Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC was a subsidiary of Toshiba Corporation, hereinafter (Toshiba. 37. In March 2017, Westinghouse filed for bankruptcy protection. 38. On July 31, 2017, the Defendants announced that they were abandoning the Projects. 39. The Defendants and Santee Cooper entered into negotiations with Westinghouse's parent corporation, Toshiba, to settle claims related to the failed construction of the Project. 40. The Defendants and Santee Cooper received a total settlement from Toshiba of $2.168 billion dollars with SCANA receiving $1.192 Billion and Santee Cooper receiving $976 million Dollars (collectively the “Toshiba Settlement”)41. Upon information and belief, at the same time South Carolina families have suffered and accordingly have been disadvantaged with the highest power bills in the South and the third highest power bills in the nation, in large part due to this failed Project. 42. At the same time and inexplicably SCANA executives received total compensation of Fourteen Million Dollars ($14,000,000.00) combined with the Chief Executive Officer K.B. Marsh receiving Six Million One Hundred Thousand ($6,100,000.00) in compensation, 43. Since 2007, the Defendants have doubled the total compensation of its top employees and officers since 2007, the date the Base Load Review Act was passed. 44, The Defendants failed to: a. properly oversee and supervise the Project; b. set and abide by a detailed construction schedule; ¢. control and account for construction cost 4. diligently spend the Plaintiff's monies; protect the Plaintiff's monies by failing to abandon the Project when it was apparent af an earlier stage that the Project was failing; £. return the Toshiba Settlement monies to the Plaintiff; and 2. Fully inform the PSC, the Plaintiffs and other ratepayers. 45. Upon information and belief, the Defendants knew, or should have known that the Project was not economically viable and was not progressing at a proper pace much earlier than the date the Project was abandoned. 46. The Defendants refused to abandon the Project at an earlier time because they received approximately Ten and a Quarter Percent (10.25%) profit from all the monies it collected from the Plaintiffs.47. Upon information and belief, Defendants have received hundreds of millions of dollars of profits from the Project while the Project itself was failing and ultimately abandoned 48. Upon information and belief, even after the abandonment of the Project, the Defendants have sought payment from rate payers going forward to pay for the Projects and are requesting that the Projects be financed by the Plaintfis over the next Sixty (60) years. Class Action Representation Allegations 49, Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, 50. The proposed class is initially defined as: a. all individuals and/or entities that paid power bills on any account to SCE&G or SCANA, directly, or indirectly, at an increased rate for the construction of the Project up to present date and continued payment of increased rates after the date of this complaint in excess of $100; b. all individuals and/or entities that paid power bills on any account to SCE&G or ‘ANA at an increased rate for the construction of the Project on a new account setup after the date of this complaint in excess of $100.00. 51. Pursuant to Rule 23, $.C.R.CP., and as otherwise alleged in this section, the introduction, and the below counts, Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to all the members of the class. 52. This Complaint has met all statutory requirements of Rule 23 of South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure for certificationa. The members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical Although a more precise number of class members wil be better established as part of a class notification, upon information and belief, the number of potential members consists of 661,000 residential retail and wholesale customers. b. There are several common questions of law and/or facts common to the class including but not limited to: ii, iii, iv. vii. viii Determination of the facts concerning, whether Defendants have accepted all monies for the Project as a Constructive Trust and shall retum the funds to the Plaintiffs, Determination of the facts concerning, whether Defendants have committed waste when it used the Plaintiffs’ monies to construct the Project. Determination of the facts concerning, whether the Defendants breached their fiduciary duty to the Plaintiffs when managing the monies for the Project. Determination of the facts conceming, whether the Defendants were negligent with the management and oversight of the Project. Determination of the facts concerning, whether the Defendants were unjustly enriched by receiving profits from the Project and whether those funds should be retumed to the Plaintifts. Determination of the facts conceming, whether the Defendants committed fraud, intentionally misrepresented the facts, or negligently misrepresented the facts concerning the Project to the Public Service Commission, the Plaintiffs, and the public. Determination of the facts conceming, whether the Defendants made promises made to the Plaintiffs through the Public Service Commission which were relied upon by Plaintiffs for the higher payment of rates and were not fulfilled by SCANA. Determination of the facts concerning whether the Toshiba Settlement and whether the Defendants should pay dividends to its shareholders, pay bonuses, retum equity to its shareholders until the resolution of this matter. c. The claims asserted by the Plaintifis are typical of the claims of the members of the Class in that their claims involve the same facts as otherwise alleged in this section, the introduction, and the below counts, arise from the same practices or course ofconduct that gives rise to the claims of all other class members, and are based on the same legal theories. d. The representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class’ A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy — particularly in the context of wage and hour litigation where individual class members lack the financial resources to vigorously prosecute a lawsuit against a corporate Defendants. Class action treatment will permit a large number of similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently, and without the unnecessary duplication of efforts and expense that numerous individual actions engender. Because the losses, injuries, and damages suffered by cach of the individual S.C. Rule 23 Class Members are small in the sense pertinent to a class action analysis, the expenses and burden of individual litigation would make it extremely difficult or impossible for the individual S.C. Rule 23 Class Members to redress the wrongs done to them, On the other hand, important public interests will be served by addressing the matter as a class action. The adjudication of individual litigation claims would result in a great expenditure of Court and public resources; however, treating the claims as a class action would result in a significant saving of these costs. The prosecution of separate actions by individual SC. Rule 23 Class Members would create a risk of inconsistent and/or varying adjudications with respect to the individual S.C. Rule 23 Class Members, establishing incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants and resulting in impairment of the $.C. Rule 23 Class Members’ rights and the disposition of their interests through actions to which they were not parties. ii. Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the class because their interests do not conflict with the interest of the members of the class they seck to represent, they adequately and truly represent the interests of the members of the absent members, they have common claims with each class member based on the same essential facts, they have retained counsel competent and experienced in class action and complex class action litigation, and they intend to prosecute this action vigorously. iii, This class shall exclude (a) all attomeys and their staff representing the putative class, (b) all members of the judiciary presiding over this case, and (c) the Defendants, including all Defendants’ agents, officers, and directors. 53. The class, as defined above, involves only Class members for whom the amount in controversy exceeds one hundred dollars ($100.00).FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Waste 54, Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate all paragraphs into this cause of action. 55. The Defendants were legally in possession of the Project and the Plaintiffs’ funds. 56, The Defendants committed an act constituting waste by: a. allowing the Project to deteriorate in value; b. failing to establish and follow a detailed construction schedule; . failing to properly spend the Plaintiffs’ finds for the construction of the Project. 4. Allowing the funds to go to waste on the Project when the Defendants, knew, or should have known that the Project was going to cost significantly more than budgeted and was unlikely to be completed; and €. Ultimate failure/abandonment of the Project. 57. The action of the Defendants’ actions was prejudicial to the Plaintiffs’ interest in the funds which were provided for the construction of the Project. 58. The Defendants’ actions were with taken malice, 59. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray that this Court enter an order awarding prejudgment interest, post judgment interest, actual, compensatory, tremble, and punitive damages including costs and attomey’s fees against the Defendants and for such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. FOR A SECOND OF ACTION Breach of Fiduciary Duty (60. Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate all paragraphs into this cause of action. 2a =61. The Plaintiffs placed a special confidence in the Defendants when the Plait Defendants with the monies to build the Project, 62. The Defendants in equity and good conscience, was bound to act in good faith and with due regard to the interests of the Plaintiff when spending the Plaintiffs’ monies and managing the Project. 63. The Defendants breached the fiduciary duty owed to the Plaintiffs by: a. allowing the Project to deteriorate in value; . not setting and following a detailed construction schedule; ¢. failing to properly spend the Plaintiffs’ funds for the construction of the Project; and 4. allowing the funds to go to waste on the Project when the Defendants, knew, or should have known that the Project was going to cost significantly more than ‘budgeted and was unlikely to be completed; and €. Ultimate abandonment of the Project. 64, The breach of the Defendants’ fiduciary duty caused damage to the Plaintiff in causing the Plaintiff to lose monies paid to the Project without receiving any benefit for the monies spent. 65. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs shall receive a return of all of the monies spent on the Project, all proceeds of the Toshiba Settlement and all profits paid to the Defendants, including prejudgment interest, post judgment interest, actual, compensatory, tremble and punitive damages including costs and attorney’s fees against the Defendants and for such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Negligence 66, Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate all paragraphs into this cause of action. 67. The Defendants owed a duty to the Plaintiff to properly: arrose‘manage the Project; set and follow a detailed construction schedule; avoid the deterioration or waste of the Project assets; avoid waste of the monies the Plaintiffs paid for the construction of the Project; properly invest the funds entrusted to the Defendants for the construction of the Project. 68. As a direct and proximate result of the above, Plaintiffs have suffered damages including, but not limited to loss of most/all monies paid to construct the Projects as well as all monies paid to the Defendants for profit on the Projects. Also, future claimed fees the Defendants seeks to collect for the Project. 69. The loss was directly and proximately caused by Defendants’ negligence, negligence per se, willfulness, wantonness, recklessness, and gross negligence in one or more of the following particulars: a b. manage the Project; failing to set and follow a detailed construction schedule; avoid the deterioration or waste of the Project assets; avoid waste of the monies the Plaintiffs paid for the construction of the Project; and properly spend the funds entrusted to the Defendants for the construction of the Project. 70, Plaintiffs have suffered actual damages in an amount to be determined by the jury in this case. In addition, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of punitive damages in an appropriate amount. -13-71. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray that this Court enter an order awarding prejudgment interest, post judgment interest, actual, compensatory, tremble, and punitive damages including costs and attorney's fees against the Defendants and for such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Quantum Meruit/Unjust Enrichment 72. Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate all paragraphs into this cause of action. 73. Plaintiffs conferred a benefit on the Defendants by paying it profits for the management of the Project. 74, The Defendants realized a non-gratuitous benefit when it received billions of dollars to complete the Project and received profits of Ten Percent (10%) of the gross amount of the Project for managing the construction of the Project. 75, The Defendants realized a non-gratuitous benefit when it received the Toshiba Settlement, billions of dollars to complete the Project and received profits of Ten Percent (10%) of the gross amount of the Project for managing the construction of the Project. 76. It is unjust and inequitable for the Defendants to retain the profits for the Project since the Project was not completed and the Plaintiffs were provided with no value from the Project. 77. It is unjust and inequitable for the Defendants to retain the Toshiba Settlement, profits for the Project and all monies paid to the Defendants. 78. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray that this Court enter an order awarding prejudgment interest, post judgment interest, actual, compensatory, tremble, and punitive damages including costs and attorney's fees against the Defendants and for such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. rieFOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Fraud, Constructive Fraud, Misrepresentation and Negligent Misrepresentation 79. Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate all paragraphs into this cause of action. 80. The Defendants made numerous statements to the Public Service Commission when seeking approval of the Project and additional funding. 81. On several occasions, and in particular on this one occasion on August 31, 2016, though press release, SCANA announced that: ‘Successfll placement of the Unit 2 reactor vessel is a very significant milestone on our path to completing the construction of the two new nuclear units,” said Kevin Marsh, SCANA chairman and CEO. This ‘accomplishment is representative of the collaboration among many people who are working hard every day to provide a clean and reliable energy future for South Carolina 82. Upon information and belief, the Defendants knew, or should have known that the statements were false, or negligently made the statements regarding the: 2, Economic viability of the Project; b. Progress of the Construction; c. Progress on the Project; 4. The true budget to complete the Project; €. The approved construction schedule; and f£. The approved capital costs estimates. 83. Upon information and belief, the Defendants concealed material problems with the Project from the Plaintiffs and the PSC. 84, The statements were made with negligence, were intentional, and/or made with malice. 85. The Plaintiffs and the PSC were not aware of the falsity of the Defendants” statements and now no new source of cheaper power for the foreseeable future mere86. The Plaintiffs and PSC relied on the statements by approving additional monies for the completion of the project and the Plaintiffs’ monies for the completion of the Projects based on the statements of the Defendants. 87. The Plaintiffs and Public Service Commission had the right to rely on the statements made by the Defendants. 88. The Plaintiffs: were proximately injured when the Plaintiffs paid much higher utility rates based on the Defendants’ statements, 89. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray that this Court enter an Order awarding prejudgment interest, post judgment interest, actual, compensatory, tremble and punitive damages including costs and attorney's fees against the Defendants and for such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Promissory Estoppel 90. Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate all paragraphs into this cause of action. 91. The Defendants provided the presence of a promise unambiguous in its terms to build the Project which would produce two nuclear reactors which was financed with significantly higher utility bills. With the monies from these increased utility bills the Defendants would build the Project and the consumers would receive the benefit of two nuclear power plants. 92. The Plaintiffs were reasonable in relying on the promise that the increased rates would result in two viable nuclear power plants. 93. The reliance on the promises of the Defendants was foreseeable and it was reasonable for the Plaintiffs to rely on the promises of the Defendants, 94, Santee Cooper breached the contract when it failed to complete the Project. = 16 -95. The Defendants also continued collecting higher utility rates even when it knew, or should have known that the Project would not be completed within the budget and would likely be abandoned. 96. The Plaintiffs have suffered direct and proximate damages as a result of the promises of the Defendants. 97. It would be unjust for the Defendants to retain the funds collected for the Project when no value was returned to the Plaintiffs and the Project was abandoned, 98. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray that this Court enters an order awarding prejudgment interest, post judgment interest, actual, compensatory, tremble and punitive damages including costs and attomey’s fees against the Defendants and for such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Constructive Trust 99. Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate all paragraphs into this cause of action. 100. ‘The Plaintifis reposed a special confidence in the Defendants to use its monies to build the Project. The Defendants in equity and good conscience was bound to act in good faith and due regard to the interests of the Plaintiff. 101. By accepting the Plaintiffs’ funds, the Defendants accepted the fiduciary relationship with regard to the management of the Plaintiff's monies and for the construction of the Project. 102, The Defendants have accepted the Plaintiffs’ monies for the construction of the Project by charging the Plaintiff higher utility bills. 103. The Defendants were trusted with the Plaintiffs’ monies to build the Project. 104, The Defendants knew, or should have known, that the Projects were not feasible, viable, and were not spending the Plaintiffs’ monies properly. ae105. _Even with the knowledge that the Project was over budget and was likely to fail, the Defendants continued to collect monies from the Plaintiff for the Project. 106. The Defendants were managing the funds of the Plaintiffs, thus the Defendants owed a duty and/or fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff to prudently manage the monies and to properly oversee the Project. 107. The Defendants also concealed material issues with the Project from the PSC and the Plaintiff while continuing to collect monies from the Plainti ‘to pay for the Project. 108. The actions of the Defendants in concealing the material issues with the Project were fraudulent and in bad faith while continuing to collect and spend the Plaintiff"s monies. 109. ‘The Defendants’ actions abused the Plaintiffs? confidence and were in violation of the fiduciary duty owed to the Plaintiffs to properly spend their monies. 110. ‘The Plaintiffs should be entitled to the return from the Defendants of: a. the entire Toshiba Settlement; b. all profits received by the Defendants; all funds received from the sale of the Project; and 4. all funds which were paid from Plaintiff's uility rates to pay for the Project. M1 The Defendants have a duty and obligation in equity to make restitution to the Plaintiffs. 112. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray that this Court enter an order awarding prejudgment interest, post judgment interest, actual, compensatory, tremble and punitive damages including costs and attomey’s fees against the Defendants and for such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. oieFOR A TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION ‘Money Had and Received 113. Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate all paragraphs into this cause of action. 114. The Plaintiffs and the Class have and continue to confer a benefit upon Defendants by paying increased rates to pay for the mismanaged and now abandoned nuclear project. 115. Defendants received and continue to receive money from Plaintiffs and the Class for ‘a special purpose and the money has not been applied to the purpose. 116. Defendants have continued to realize the benefit of the increased rates from the Plaintiff and the Class since the decision to suspend and cancel construction on the nuclear project. 117. Defendants have improperly retained the benefits of these increased rates paid by Plaintiffs and the Class without repaying their value to Plaintiffs and the Class 118. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray that this Court enter an order awarding prejudgment interest, post judgment interest, actual, compensatory, tremble and punitive damages including costs and attorney's fees against the Defendants and for such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. FOR AN ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Freezing of Assets 119. Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate all paragraphs into this cause of action. 120, Plaintiffs seek an Order of this Court which freezes the following assets of the Defendants: a. As to all Defendants, any money received from the Toshiba Settlement; b. As to SCANA any monies paid to shareholders from this date forward; ©. As to SCANA any profits paid from July 31, 2017 forward; and d._ As to SCANA all dividends to shareholders. -19-WHEREFORE: As to all Causes of Action, the Plaintiffs pray that this Court enters an order awarding prejudgment interest, post judgment interest, actual, compensatory, tremble, and punitive damages including costs and attomey’s fees against the Defendants and for such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper and to certify the class of Plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 23, SCRCP. Respectfully submitted this 28th day of August, 2017 BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC a2 Bell, Esq b 1 9 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 29440 (843) 546-2408 Phone South Carolina (843) 546-9604 Fax day of August, 2017 ebell@edbelliaw.cor ‘Vincent Sheheen, Esq. SAVAGE, ROYALL AND SHEHEEN, L.L.P 111] Church Street Camden, SC 29020 (803) 432-4391 Phone Gregory Michael Galvin, Esq. GALVIN LAW GROUP, LLC PO Box 887 Bluffton, South Carolina 29910 (843)227-2231 (888) 362-0714 Fax alvin@galvinlawgroup.com Creighton B. Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN & TOLEN, LLC 120 West Washington Street PO Box 1006 Winnsboro, SC 29180 Office: (803) 635-6884 Fax: (803) 635-9228 E-Mail: creighton@colemantolen.com 20 —Jury Demand ‘The Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues. Georgejayn, South Carolina day of August, 2017 BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC ‘dward Bell, Esq. 2Y9 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 29440 (843) 546-2408 Phone (843) 546-9604 Fax ebell@edbe Vincent Sheheen, Esq. SAVAGE, ROYALL AND SHEHEEN, L.L.P. 111] Church Street Camden, SC 29020 (803) 432-4391 Phone Gregory Michael Galvin, Esq. GALVIN LAW GROUP, LLC PO Box 887 Bluffton, South Carolina 29910 (843)227-2231 (888) 362-0714 Fax an alvinlawgroup.com Creighton B. Coleman, Esq, COLEMAN & TOLEN, LLC 120 West Washington Street PO Box 1006 Winnsboro, SC 29180 Office: (803) 635-6884 Fax: (803) 635-9228 E-Mail: creighton@colemantolen.com