Point Blank: Zylon Vest Sales and the Debtor-Company Resolution
Point Blank paid $1 million to resolve allegations that it knowingly manufactured and sold defective Zylon bulletproof vests. In this debtor-company resolution, Point Blank paid the United States at the closing of the bankrupt companies’ asset sale. The government alleged that the maker already possessed information showing that Zylon degraded quickly and was unsuitable for ballistic use. For someone inside the business, the important connection is between that information and the decision to keep selling protection to law enforcement.
The Justice Department’s November 7, 2011 announcement identified Point Blank Solutions Inc., formerly DHB Industries Inc., among the debtor companies based in Pompano Beach, Florida, and Jacksboro, Tennessee. By then, nine other Zylon-industry participants had settled for more than $61 million.
This is the human consequence of selling the government goods that cannot do the job promised. Taxpayers pay for protection. Officers wear it. We see an especially ugly bargain in the alleged conduct: the seller has information about the material’s failure, while the person relying on the vest bears the physical risk.
How the Vests Reached Government Buyers
Point Blank’s vests reached law enforcement through direct federal purchases and purchases by state, local, and tribal agencies that received partial federal reimbursement. The Justice Department identified its Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program as the reimbursement route.
That distinction matters to someone who knows the customer accounts. A local police department can be the buyer while federal assistance supplies part of the purchase money. The federal government need not appear as the customer on every sale for federal money to be involved. Point Blank’s resolution expressly covered both purchasing routes.
Inside a vest business, the product and the payment can leave different trails. Manufacturer and supplier records identify what went into the goods. Purchase orders and shipping documents connect them to customers. On an assisted purchase, the local buying record and the federal reimbursement record explain different parts of the same transaction.
That is why the records behind the payment matter alongside the product information. We connect those records to the quality information available inside the supplier. For this case, the alleged contradiction was between vests sold for ballistic protection and information that their material was unsuitable for that use.
What the Zylon Supply Chain Shows
The government alleged that Toyobo, the sole manufacturer of Zylon fiber, published misleading degradation data despite knowing that ordinary heat and humidity caused the fiber to degrade quickly and made vests containing it unfit for use.
The government alleged that Barrday knew about Zylon degradation by December 2001, yet continued supplying fabric until approximately 2003 to downstream vest manufacturers that included Point Blank.
Those allegations show why a fabric buyer’s or supplier’s account can matter to a finished-product case. The warning may arrive before the vest is made. Supplier communications can connect information about the material to the finished-vest maker’s decision to keep selling.
What the Body-Armor Testing Found
In August 2005, the National Institute of Justice found that more than 50% of the used Zylon-containing vests it studied could not stop bullets they had been certified to stop, according to the Justice Department’s Toyobo announcement. The institute then decertified all Zylon-containing vests.
The government’s testing account gives an insider a concrete distinction: the protection a vest was certified to provide and its ability to keep providing it.
Point Blank’s Cooperation With the Investigation
Point Blank pledged cooperation with the wider Zylon investigation as part of its agreement. The Justice Department credited its Civil Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia among the contributors, along with the General Services Administration’s Office of the Inspector General and the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General.
A former Second Chance employee brought a qui tam case under the False Claims Act, and the government joined it.
What Proof Do You Need as a Whistleblower?
For a body-armor case, the useful proof connects what the supplier knew about the material with what it sold, what the buyer was told, and the government money behind the purchase. Product knowledge gives those connections meaning. We work with the person who can explain why a test result, supplier warning, or product description matters to the vest that was delivered.
Where test results or quality certifications were changed, the original results and the later certificate show the difference. Where the issue is continued sales after a warning, supplier communications and dated orders connect the warning to the business decision.
An insider may understand a product reference that means little to someone outside the trade, or know which supplier communication changed what the business understood about a material. We bring that knowledge into the case alongside the purchasing and payment records.
A whistleblower case under the False Claims Act can pay 15% to 30% of what the government recovers.
You Know What the Vest Was Made Of
If you know the material, the testing, or the decision to keep selling after a warning, speak to one of our Whistleblower Experts about what happened inside the business. We work with you to build your strongest case and bring in government procurement whistleblower lawyers who understand product-quality disputes and federally funded purchases. From the first discussion through the pursuit of a recovery, we stay beside you and keep your knowledge of the business at the center of the case.
