Silfab Solar’s legal problems in York County just escalated after a court entered default against Silfab Solar Cells SC Inc. in a $1.3 million lawsuit filed by Sunbelt Rentals.
Sunbelt filed its motion for default on September 17. The company said Silfab was served August 3 but failed to answer within the required time.
This morning, the court entered default against Silfab.
“Default is hereby entered against Defendant Silfab Solar Cells SC Inc.”
The case is the latest development in an unusually crowded legal docket surrounding Silfab’s Fort Mill factory. Those disputes now stretch from York County Common Pleas Court to the South Carolina Court of Appeals and U.S. Supreme Court.
Sunbelt Says More Than $1.3 Million Remains Unpaid
Sunbelt alleges Silfab accumulated substantial unpaid equipment rental bills during construction of the Fort Mill facility.
The companies negotiated a repayment agreement in April requiring $50,000 every week.
Sunbelt says Silfab instead made only $114,295.67 in payments through June 15. Its attorneys later demanded the remaining balance and threatened foreclosure proceedings.
After additional credits, Sunbelt alleges $1,313,732.45 remains unpaid.
Sunbelt also recorded a mechanic’s lien and seeks foreclosure-related relief against property owner Exeter 7149 Logistics.
Exeter purchased the Stateline 77 property from Rockefeller Group for approximately $106 million in 2023, with Silfab as the major tenant. The deed included in court filings records the $106 million transaction.
Silfab Cases Now Span Multiple Courts
Court records show numerous active, stayed, and pending cases involving Silfab, its landlord Exeter, and York County officials related to the factory;
- Sunbelt Rentals v. Silfab and Exeter — 2026CP4602612: Pending. Sunbelt seeks $1.313 million, plus interest and fees. Default was entered against Silfab September 18.
- Century Contractors v. Silfab and Exeter — 2026CP4602680: Pending foreclosure action. Century seeks at least $532,779.37 and asks the court to allow enforcement against Exeter’s property interest and Silfab’s leasehold.
- Superior Electrical Services v. Silfab — 2026CP4602320: Pending/ADR. Superior alleges $581,933.78 remains unpaid for electrical work and materials.
- Lear’s Welding & Fabrication v. Silfab entities — 2026CP4602480: Pending/ADR. Lear’s alleges $321,622.99 remains unpaid.
- SPG Construction v. National Partitions — 2025CP4602598: Construction dispute tied to Silfab’s factory. A judge recently confirmed an arbitration award involving the massive clean-room project. Court records describe a $12 million materials contract and more than $5 million in installation work.
- Silfab zoning case: A York County judge affirmed the BZA ruling against Silfab’s zoning position in August. Silfab and Exeter have continued challenging the ruling.
- Bivens v. York County — S.C. Court of Appeals, 2026-000199: Pending. Bivens is appealing the dismissal of his case challenging York County’s permitting and zoning-compliance process. Court correspondence shows the appeal is being considered for the December term.
- Buchanan v. S.C. Department of Environmental Services and Silfab — S.C. Court of Appeals, 2025-000288: The appeal challenges the handling of Silfab’s state air permit. The appellate docket currently lists the case as “Ready for Consideration.”
- Citizens Alliance for Government Integrity v. York County — U.S. Supreme Court, No. 25-1299: CAGI filed a petition for certiorari challenging York County’s actions related to Silfab’s permits on federal due-process grounds. The Supreme Court docket shows the petition was distributed for the September 28 conference, with a supplemental brief filed September 11.
The four major active contractor payment cases alone involve approximately $2.75 million in alleged unpaid balances, excluding interest and legal costs.
More Than a Routine Construction Dispute
Contract disputes and mechanic’s liens happen regularly on major construction projects.
What stands out here is the concentration of unrelated creditors reaching advanced litigation stages around the same facility.
Several vendors allege six-figure unpaid balances. Two creditors are pursuing property-related lien remedies. Sunbelt alleges Silfab negotiated a repayment plan and then failed to meet it.
Now, Sunbelt’s case has progressed to an actual default entry.
The expanding docket represents mounting legal and financial pressure around a factory already facing growing zoning, environmental, and regulatory challenges.
For Exeter, the disputes also carry a separate concern: contractors are increasingly looking beyond Silfab and toward interests in the $106 million Fort Mill property to secure money they allege remains unpaid.
