Court filing

Exhibit I - Complaint - N.D. Ill. 1:20-cv-02644 — Agent Fee Litigation (Dkt. 1.14)

Summary

Exhibit I to Document 1-14 in MDL No. 2950, filed May 22, 2020, containing the complaint and docket sheet in A.D. Sims, LLC v. Wintrust Financial Corporation et al., No. 1:20-cv-02644, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. The class action complaint, filed April 30, 2020, names Wintrust Financial Corporation, Wintrust Bank N.A., Bank of America Co., Bank of America N.A., Retail Capital LLC dba Credibly, Modern Bank Management, LLC, Modern Bank N.A., CRB Group Inc., Cross River Bank, Inc., BlueVine Capital Inc. and Doe Lenders 1 to 4,975. It asserts jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), describes the $349 billion Paycheck Protection Program, and seeks agent fees for assistance with loan applications. The 26-page exhibit closes with docket entries and a PACER receipt.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Case MDL No. 2950 Document 1-14 Filed 05/22/20 Page 1 of 26

Exhibit I
Complaint and Docket Sheet – N.D. Illinois No. 1:20-cv-02644
Case:
Case MDL
1:20-cv-02644
No. 2950
Document
Document
#: 1 1-14
Filed: Filed
04/30/20
05/22/20
Page 1 of 19
Page 2
PageID
of 26#:1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

A.D. SIMS, LLC, on behalf of a class of
similarly situated businesses and individuals, No. 1:20-cv- _________

Plaintiff(s),

WINTRUST FINANCIAL CORPORATION;
WINTRUST BANK, N.A; BANK OF
AMERICA CO.; BANK OF AMERICA N.A.;
RETAIL CAPITAL LLC DBA CREDIBLY;
MODERN BANK MANAGEMENT, LLC;
MODERN BANK N.A.; CRB GROUP INC.;
CROSS RIVER BANK, INC.; BLUEVINE
CAPITAL INC.; and;
DOE LENDERS 1 to 4,975, inclusive,

Defendants.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff A.D. Sims LLC (“AD Sims”) brings this class action on behalf of itself and those

similarly situated (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) against Defendants Wintrust Financial Corporation;

Wintrust Bank N.A.; Bank of America Co.; Bank of America N.A.; Retail Capital LLC DBA

Credibly; Modern Bank Management, LLC; Modern Bank N.A.; CRB Group, Inc.; Cross River

Bank, Inc.; BlueVine Capital Inc.; and Doe Lenders 1 to 4,975, inclusive (collectively,

“Defendants”) as follows:
THE PARTIES

1. AD Sims is a limited liability company existing and operating in good standing

under the laws of the State of Illinois, with its principal place of business located in Cook County,

Illinois. The firm specializes in providing financial advisory and related consulting services to

small businesses.
Case:
Case MDL
1:20-cv-02644
No. 2950
Document
Document
#: 1 1-14
Filed: Filed
04/30/20
05/22/20
Page 2 of 19
Page 3
PageID
of 26#:2

2. Upon information and belief, Defendant Wintrust Financial Corporation (“WFC”)

is an Illinois corporation and the parent company of Defendant Wintrust Bank N.A. WFC is a

financial holding company that operates 15 chartered community banks in Northern Illinois and

Southern Wisconsin. Upon information and belief, through its subsidiaries, WFC conducts

substantial business in this District.

3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Wintrust Bank N.A. (“WB”) is a federally-

chartered bank and a subsidiary of Defendant WFC. Upon information and belief, Defendant WB

conducts substantial business within this District.

4. Upon information and belief, Defendant Bank of America, Co. (“BofA Co.”) is a

Delaware corporation and the parent company of Defendant Bank of America N.A. (“BofA”). It

is an American multinational investment bank and financial services company. Upon information

and belief, through its subsidiaries, BofA Co. conducts substantial business within this District.

5. Upon information and belief, Defendant BofA is a North Carolina corporation, a

federally-chartered bank, and a subsidiary of Defendant BofA Co. Upon information and belief,

BofA conducts substantial business within this District.

6. Upon information and belief, Defendant Retail Capital LLC d/b/a Credibly

(“Credibly”) is a New York limited liability company. Credibly provides small business loans,

working capital, and business expansion loans. Upon information and belief, Credibly conducts

substantial business within this District.

7. Upon information and belief, Defendant Modern Bank Management, LLC

(“MBM”) is a Delaware limited liability company. It is the parent company of Defendant Modern

Bank N.A. (“MB”) Upon information and belief, MBM conducts substantial business within this

District.

2
Case:
Case MDL
1:20-cv-02644
No. 2950
Document
Document
#: 1 1-14
Filed: Filed
04/30/20
05/22/20
Page 3 of 19
Page 4
PageID
of 26#:3

8. Upon information and belief, Defendant MB is a federally-charted bank in New

York, and a subsidiary of Defendant MBM. It is a digital banking service that provides checking

and savings accounts, certificates of deposit (“CDs”), and online banking. Upon information and

belief, MB conducts substantial business within this District.

9. Upon information and belief, Defendant CRB Group, Inc. (“CRBG”) is a New

Jersey corporation and the parent company of Defendant Cross River Bank, Inc. (“CRBI”). Upon

information and belief, CRBG through its subsidiary conducts substantial business in this District.

10. Upon information and belief, Defendant CRBI is a subsidiary of Defendant CRBG.

It is a New Jersey state-chartered commercial banking corporation and conducts substantial

business within this District.

11. Upon information and belief, Defendant BlueVine Capital Inc. (“BlueVine”) is a

Delaware corporation that operates a fintech startup. BlueVine provides financing for small

businesses such as lines of credit, term loans, and invoice factoring services. Upon information

and belief, BlueVine is headquartered in Redwood City, California and conducts substantial

business within this District.

12. Upon information and belief, Defendants Doe Lenders 1 to 4,975 are responsible

for the damages and unfair business practices and violations of rights as described in this

Complaint. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to state the true names, identities, or capacities of

such fictitiously-named Defendants when ascertained.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13. The Court has original jurisdiction over this Action under the Class Action Fairness

Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) because this is a class action in which: (1) at least some members of the

proposed Class have different citizenship from Defendant(s); (2) the proposed class consists of

3
Case:
Case MDL
1:20-cv-02644
No. 2950
Document
Document
#: 1 1-14
Filed: Filed
04/30/20
05/22/20
Page 4 of 19
Page 5
PageID
of 26#:4

more than 100 persons or entities; and (3) the claims of the proposed members of the Class exceed

$5,000,000 in the aggregate.

14. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants do

business in this District, and a substantial number of the events giving rise to the claims alleged

herein took place in Illinois.

15. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the alleged claims occurred in this District

given that Plaintiff applied on behalf of its clients for PPP loans while in this District, and

Defendants marketed, promoted, and took applications for PPP loans in this District.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Background

16. On January 21, 2020, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”)

confirmed the first U.S. case of a new coronavirus known as COVID-19.

17. On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization (“WHO”) declared the

COVID-19 outbreak to be a “public health emergency of international concern.”

18. On March 11, 2020, the WHO declared that the spread of COVID-19 had become

a pandemic.

19. On March 13, 2020, President Trump issued the Coronavirus Disease 2019

(COVID-19) Emergency Declaration applicable to the United States, which declared that the

pandemic was of “sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration for all

states, territories and the District of Columbia.”

20. The Administration expressly recognized that with the COVID-19 emergency

“many small businesses nationwide are experiencing economic hardship as a direct result of the

4
Case:
Case MDL
1:20-cv-02644
No. 2950
Document
Document
#: 1 1-14
Filed: Filed
04/30/20
05/22/20
Page 5 of 19
Page 6
PageID
of 26#:5

Federal, State and local public health measures that are being taken to minimize the public’s

exposure to the virus.” See Business Loan Program Temporary Changes; Paycheck Protection

Program, 13 CFR Part 120, Interim Final Rule (the “SBA PPP Final Rule”).

21. On March 20, 2020, Illinois Governor Jay Robert Pritzker issued an executive Stay

at Home Order for the State to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

22. On March 25, 2020, in response to the economic damage caused by the COVID-19

crisis, the United States Senate passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act

(the “CARES” Act). The CARES Act (P.L. 116-136) was passed by the House of Representatives

the following day and signed into law by President Trump on March 27, 2020. This legislation

included $377 billion in federally-funded loans to small businesses and a $500 billion

governmental lending program, administered by the United States Department of Treasury

(“Treasury”) and its Small Business Administration (“SBA”), a United States government agency

that provides support to entrepreneurs and small businesses nationwide.

23. As part of the CARES Act, the Federal Government created a $349 billion loan

program referred to as the “Paycheck Protection Program” (“PPP”) for small businesses providing

funds for loans to be originated from February 15, 2020 through June 30, 2020. The PPP was

created to provide American small businesses with eight weeks of cash-flow assistance, with a

certain percentage forgivable if utilized to retain employees and fund payrolls. The loans are

backed by the SBA. The loans are administered by Treasury, backed by the Federal Government,

but funded by private lenders (“Lenders”), including banks and financial services firms.

24. Treasury announced on April 3, 2020 that small businesses and sole proprietors

could apply and receive loans to cover their payroll and other expenses through approved SBA

5
Case:
Case MDL
1:20-cv-02644
No. 2950
Document
Document
#: 1 1-14
Filed: Filed
04/30/20
05/22/20
Page 6 of 19
Page 7
PageID
of 26#:6

Lenders. Beginning on April 10, 2020, independent contractors and self-employed individuals

could apply as well.

25. On April 24, 2020, President Trump signed the Paycheck Protection Program and

Health Care Enhancement Act (“PPPEA”). The PPPEA added an additional $310 billion in PPP

funding, bringing the total PPP funds available to lend to $659 billion.

26. Treasury’s PPP Information Sheet Lenders (the “PPP ISL”), consistent with the

SBA PPP Final Rule (collectively, the “SBA Regulations”) provides that Lenders will be

compensated for processing fees based on the balance of the financing at the time of final

disbursement. Specifically, the SBA will pay Lenders fees for processing PPP loans in the

following amounts:

a. Five (5%) percent for loans of not more than $350,000;

b. Three (3%) percent for loans of more than $350,000 and less than $2,000,000;

and

c. One (1%) percent for loans of at least $2,000,000.

27. The SBA Regulations not only include compensation for Lenders, but also for

agents. Under the PPP ISL, “[a]n ‘Agent’ is an authorized representative and can be:

a. An attorney;

b. An accountant;

c. A consultant;

d. Someone who prepares an applicant’s application for financial assistance and

is employed and compensated by the applicant;

e. Someone who assists a lender with originating, disbursing, servicing,

liquidating, or litigating SBA loans;

6
Case:
Case MDL
1:20-cv-02644
No. 2950
Document
Document
#: 1 1-14
Filed: Filed
04/30/20
05/22/20
Page 7 of 19
Page 8
PageID
of 26#:7

f. A loan broker; or

g. Any other individual or entity representing an applicant by conducting business

with the SBA.”

28. Additionally, the SBA Regulations provide that “Agent fees will be paid out of

lender fees. The lender will pay the agent. Agents may not collect any fees from the applicant. The

total amount that an agent may collect from the lender for assistance in preparing an application

for a PPP loan” is as follows:

a. “One (1) percent for loans of not more than $350,000;

b. 0.50 percent for loans of more than $350,000 and less than $2 million; and

c. 0.25 percent for loans of at least $2 million.” (Emphasis Added).

29. The SBA Regulations establish limits on agent fees. The SBA Regulations and

Treasury Guidance determined that the agent fee limits set forth above are reasonable given the

application requirements and the fees that Lenders receive for making PPP loans.

30. Within this context, Defendants served as the intermediary between small

businesses and federal funds. Plaintiff served as the Agent for the small businesses applying for

the PPP loans to be lent by the Defendants and backed by the Federal Government.

31. Based on information and belief, Defendants received approval from the SBA and

funded loans for numerous businesses, yet failed to pay the required compensation to Plaintiff (the

“Agent”) that facilitated the loan process between Lenders and applicant as required by the SBA

Regulations.

32. Defendants have either failed and refused to pay, or are willing to pay only a partial

percentage of the monies owed to Plaintiff.

7
Case:
Case MDL
1:20-cv-02644
No. 2950
Document
Document
#: 1 1-14
Filed: Filed
04/30/20
05/22/20
Page 8 of 19
Page 9
PageID
of 26#:8

33. As calculated in Exhibit “A” hereto, Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and the proposed

Class (as defined below), seeks $3,848,597,082.00 to be set aside pro-rata by the Defendants for

distribution to a designee of the borrowers of the respective PPP loans.

Plaintiff Assists its Clients With Applying for PPP Loans
Under the CARES ACT

34. On or about March 25, 2020, Plaintiff became aware that the CARES Act had been

signed into law. Plaintiff, knowing that the COVID-19 crisis would seriously impact its clients’

businesses, sought to obtain PPP loans through various Lenders on behalf of its clients.

35. Plaintiff spent between 50-100 hours familiarizing itself with the Act, and the

related SBA Regulations, and in particular, (a) Section 1102, which permits the SBA to guarantee

100% of Section 7(a) loans under the PPP and (b) Section 1106 of the Act which provides

forgiveness of up to the full principal amount of qualifying loans guaranteed under the PPP.

36. In or about April 2020, Plaintiff assisted its clients in the gathering and analysis of

their documents, as well as the calculation and preparation of their loan applications.

37. Based on the SBA Regulations, Plaintiff understood that it was not allowed to

charge its clients a fee relating to the application process and that the only compensation it would

receive was from the mandated Agent fees paid out of the lending institution’s fees received from

the Federal Government for originating the loan.

38. Plaintiff spent between two (2) and ten (10) hours on each application, depending

on the complexity of the client and the amount of available data.

39. To prepare the application documentation, Plaintiff assisted clients in gathering the

required information and preparing the Applications, including the following, where applicable or

necessary, and for each 20% or greater owner of the borrower:

a. Loan Calculator Spreadsheet;

8
Case:
Case MDL
1:20-cv-02644
No. 2950Document
Document
#: 11-14
Filed: Filed
04/30/20
05/22/20
Page 9 ofPage
19 10
PageID
of 26
#:9

b. SBA Form 2483;

c. Addendum A: Affiliates;

d. Information if the applicant received an SBA Economic Injury Disaster Loan

(“EIDL”);

e. Certificate of Beneficial Ownership Interest;

f. Driver’s Licenses;

g. Articles of Incorporation or Articles of Organization;

h. 2019 IRS/State Payroll Forms;

i. 2019 Payroll Summary Report by each Employee;

j. 2019 Health Insurance Premium Paid, including each monthly statement or

year-end summary;

k. 2019 Retirement Matching Plan Paid, including each monthly statement or

year-end summary;

l. 2020 1st QTR 941 Form;

m. January 2020 Payroll Summary by Employee;

n. February 2020 Payroll Summary by Employee;

o. March 2020 Payroll Summary by Employee;

p. Health Insurance Premium Paid – January, February, and March 2020;

q. Retirement Matching Plan Paid – January, February, and March 2020;

r. Wiring Instruction; and

s. Copy of the Borrower’s most recent bank statement,

(collectively, (a) – (s) above are part of the Application).

9
Case:
Case MDL
1:20-cv-02644
No. 2950
Document
Document
#: 1 Filed:
1-14 04/30/20
Filed 5/22/20
Page 10 ofPage
19 11
PageID
of 26
#:10

40. In most instances, the Application had to be amended or redone at least once as the

SBA or the Lenders changed the forms, and added new documentation and addendum

requirements,. Plaintiff spent additional hours making the required changes, and in some cases

resubmitted the entire Application to the Lenders because Defendants required Plaintiff to do so.

41. Plaintiff believed in good faith that it would receive the Agent fees from the

Lenders upon funding of each of its clients’ loans under the PPP as required by the SBA

Regulations.

42. Upon information and belief, Defendants did not comply with the SBA Regulations

in distributing PPP funds. Instead, Defendants either retained all of the Agent Fees, or informed

Agents that they would be paid only fifty (50) percent of the mandated fees. As a result of

Defendants’ unlawful actions, Plaintiff has suffered financial harm by being deprived of the

statutorily mandated compensation for the professional services that it provided in connection to

assisting its clients in applying for and obtaining PPP loans.

Class Action Certification

43. As noted above, Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of itself and all others

similarly-situated as a state and nationwide Class, defined below.

44. Plaintiff seeks to represent a Class composed of and defined as follows:

a. All Agents as that term is defined by the SBA Regulations that facilitated small

businesses to receive a loan under the PPP, i.e., met the criteria for eligibility

and were not otherwise ineligible, between February 15, 2020 and June 30,

2020, who timely applied for a PPP loan through various Lenders and were

processed and approved for funding.

b. An “Agent” as defined by the SBA Regulations is as follows:

10
Case:
Case MDL
1:20-cv-02644
No. 2950
Document
Document
#: 1 Filed:
1-14 04/30/20
Filed 5/22/20
Page 11 ofPage
19 12
PageID
of 26
#:11

i. an attorney,

ii. an accountant,

iii. a consultant,

iv. someone who prepared an applicant’s application for financial

assistance and is employed and compensated by applicant,

v. someone who assists a lender with originating, disbursing, servicing

liquidating, or litigating SBA loans,

vi. a loan broker, or

vii. any other individual or entity representing an applicant by conducting

business with the SBA.

45. Plaintiff reserves the right to expand, limit, modify, or amend this Class definition,

including the addition of one or more subclasses, in connection with Plaintiff’s motion for class

certification, or any other time, based upon, inter alia, changing circumstances and/or new facts

obtained during discovery.

46. Numerosity: The Class is composed of thousands of Agents (the “Class Members”)

whose joinder in this action would be impracticable. The disposition of their claims through this

class action will benefit all Class Members, the parties, and the courts.

47. Commonality: There is a commonality in questions of law and fact affecting the

Class. These questions of law and fact predominate over individual questions affecting individual

Class Members, including, but not limited to, the following:

a. Did Defendants comply with all applicable SBA Regulations in processing

Applications for PPP funds and in distributing PPP funds?

b. Did Defendants comply with their legal obligations under the terms of the

CARES Act as a lender of the PPP funds?

c. Did Defendants have a policy and/or practice of failing to compensate Agents

who facilitated PPP loans to the detriment of the Class?

d. Did Defendants prioritize their own origination fees over abiding by the

11
Case:
Case MDL
1:20-cv-02644
No. 2950
Document
Document
#: 1 Filed:
1-14 04/30/20
Filed 5/22/20
Page 12 ofPage
19 13
PageID
of 26
#:12

CARES Act and PPP specifications?

e. Did Defendants’ conduct constitute an “unfair business practice” under Illinois

Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505, et seq.?

f. Did Defendants possess exclusive knowledge of material facts, with respect to

the Application process, i.e., that the Agents would not receive compensation

when assisting applicants with PPP loan process?

g. Did Defendants actively conceal a material fact or facts from the Plaintiff, i.e.,

that the Agent was not going to receive its earned fees from assisting with the

Applications?

h. Whether Defendants’ conduct, as alleged herein, was intentional and knowing?

i. Whether Class Members are entitled to damages and/or restitution; and if so,

what is the amount of revenues and/or profits Defendants received and/or was

lost by Class Members as a result of the conduct alleged herein?

j. Whether Defendants are likely to continue to mislead the public and Class

Members and continue to violate SBA Regulations regarding paying Agent

their earned fees under the CARES Act; and

k. Whether Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to an award of reasonable

attorney’s fees, pre-judgment interest and costs of suit.

48. Superiority: In engaging in the conduct described herein, Defendants have acted

and/or failed to act on grounds generally applicable to Plaintiff and other Class Members. Such

conduct requires the Court’s imposition of uniform relief to ensure compatible standards of

conduct toward Class Members. A class action is superior to all other available means for the fair

and efficient adjudication of Plaintiff’s and the Class Members’ claims. Few, if any, Class

Members could afford to seek legal redress of the wrongs complained herein on an individual

basis. Absent a class action, Class Members and the general public would not likely recover, or

have the chance to recover, damages or restitution, and Defendants would be permitted to retain

the fruits of their misdeeds.

12
Case:
Case MDL
1:20-cv-02644
No. 2950
Document
Document
#: 1 Filed:
1-14 04/30/20
Filed 5/22/20
Page 13 ofPage
19 14
PageID
of 26
#:13

49. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of, and are not antagonistic to, the claims

of all Class Members. Plaintiff and the Class Members have all been deceived by Defendants’

unfair and unlawful PPP loan application and funding practices, as alleged herein. The factual and

legal basis of Defendants’ liability to Plaintiff and each Class Member as a result of Defendants’

actions are described herein.

50. Adequacy: Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class because it is a

member of the Class, and Plaintiff’s interests do not conflict with the interest of the other Class

Members that Plaintiff seeks to represent. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect

the interest of the other Class Members. Plaintiff has retained counsel with substantial experience

in litigating complex cases, including consumer fraud and class actions. Both Plaintiff and its

counsel will vigorously prosecute this action on behalf of the Class and have the financial ability

to do so. Neither Plaintiff nor counsel have any interest adverse to other Class Members.

51. Ascertainability: Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants keep extensive

computerized records of their loan applications through, inter alia, computerized loan application

systems and Federally mandated record keeping practices. Defendants have one or more databases

through which all of the borrowers may be identified and ascertained, and it maintains contact

information, including email and mailing addresses. From this information, the existence of the

Class Members (i.e., the Agent for the borrower) can be determined, and thereafter, notice of this

action can be disseminated in accordance with due processes requirements.

COUNT I
(DECLARATORY RELIEF)

52. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the forgoing allegations as if the same were fully

alleged herein.

53. Plaintiff asserts this cause of action on behalf of itself and other Class Members as

Agents, as defined by the SBA as follows: (i) an attorney; (ii) an accountant; (iii) a consultant; (iv)

someone who prepared an applicant’s application for financial assistance and is employed and

13
Case:
Case MDL
1:20-cv-02644
No. 2950
Document
Document
#: 1 Filed:
1-14 04/30/20
Filed 5/22/20
Page 14 ofPage
19 15
PageID
of 26
#:14

compensated by applicant; (v) someone who assists a lender with originating, disbursing, servicing

liquidating, or litigating SBA loans; (vi) a loan broker; or (vii) any other individual or entity

representing an applicant by conducting business with the SBA.

54. Plaintiff assisted its clients with the application process. Defendants failed to pay

Agent fees owed to Plaintiff as required by SBA Regulations and instead kept all of the origination

and processing fees for themselves, in direct violation of the SBA Regulations.

55. An actual controversy has arisen between Plaintiff and Defendants as to the Agent

fees owed to Plaintiff by Defendants, and, upon information and belief, Defendants either deny

that any Agent fees are owed to Plaintiff, or claim that only a percentage of the Agent fees are

owed.

56. Plaintiff and the Class Members seek a declaration in accordance with SBA

Regulations that approximately 19.14% of all administrative fees paid to all Defendants should be

deposited into a mutually-agreeable fund or funds within 60 days, to be distributed to the

designee/Agent of each recipient of a PPP loan. The calculations in support of this 19.14% are

shown in Exhibit “A” hereto.

COUNT II
(VIOLATION OF ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS
PRACTICES ACT/ 815 ILCS 505)

57. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the forgoing allegations as if the same were fully

alleged herein.

58. Plaintiff asserts this cause of action on behalf of itself and other Class Members as

Agents, as defined by the SBA as follows: (i) an attorney; (ii) an accountant; (iii) a consultant; (iv)

someone who prepared an applicant’s application for financial assistance and is employed and

compensated by applicant; (v) someone who assists a lender with originating, disbursing, servicing

14
Case:
Case MDL
1:20-cv-02644
No. 2950
Document
Document
#: 1 Filed:
1-14 04/30/20
Filed 5/22/20
Page 15 ofPage
19 16
PageID
of 26
#:15

liquidating, or litigating SBA loans; (vi) a loan broker; or (vii) any other individual or entity

representing an applicant by conducting business with the SBA.

59. In order to constitute an unfair practice under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and

Deceptive Business Practices Act (hereinafter “ICFDBA”), the practice must either offend public

policy; be immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; or cause substantial injury to

consumers.

60. Defendants have violated the ICFDBA by engaging in unfair practices by

circumventing and ignoring their obligations to comply with the Agent fee payment requirements

under the SBA Regulations.

61. Defendants engaged in lending to businesses under the PPPEA and thus were

required to abide by obligations set forth in the SBA Regulations.

62. Plaintiff as well as all Class Members engaged in helping clients apply for PPP

loans with the understanding, consistent with the SBA Regulations, that while they were not

permitted to charge their clients fees for their professional services in assisting in compiling the

Applications, they would be able to obtain as compensation the mandated Agent Fees from the

Lenders.

63. Defendants are well aware, or should have been well aware, of the mandated Agent

Fees owed to Agent under the SBA Regulations.

64. Defendants’ unfair practices occurred during the course of the Application process

when Plaintiff rendered services to its clients in anticipation of being paid the mandated Agent

Fees by the Lenders, only to be denied all or a portion of the Agent Fees owed under the SBA

Regulations.

15
Case:
Case MDL
1:20-cv-02644
No. 2950
Document
Document
#: 1 Filed:
1-14 04/30/20
Filed 5/22/20
Page 16 ofPage
19 17
PageID
of 26
#:16

65. Defendants’ unfair practices of refusing to pay the mandated Agent Fees and their

failure to adhere to the SBA Regulations as to PPP loans are the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s

damages.

66. These acts and practices are unfair because Defendants withheld monies owed to

Plaintiff that were clearly provided for pursuant to the SBA Regulations.

67. By committing the acts and practices alleged above, Defendants engaged in unfair

business practices within the meaning of the ICFDBA.

68. Plaintiff, the Class, and members of the public will be harmed and/or denied an

effective and complete remedy if such an order is not granted.

69. Through their unfair acts and practices, Defendants have improperly obtained

money from the Federal Government at the expense of Plaintiff and the Class.

As such, Plaintiff requests that this Court cause Defendants to disgorge this money to Plaintiff and

all Class Members, enjoin Defendants from continuing to violate the ICFDBA as discussed herein,

and award Plaintiff such other damages and relief this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT III
(UNJUST ENRICHMENT)

70. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the forgoing allegations as if the same were fully

alleged herein.

71. Plaintiff asserts this cause of action on behalf of itself and other Class Members as

Agents as defined by the SBA as follows: (i) an attorney; (ii) an accountant; (iii) a consultant; (iv)

someone who prepared an applicant’s application for financial assistance and is employed and

compensated by applicant; (v) someone who assists a lender with originating, disbursing, servicing

liquidating, or litigating SBA loans; (vi) a loan broker; or (vii) any other individual or entity

representing an applicant by conducting business with the SBA.

16
Case:
Case MDL
1:20-cv-02644
No. 2950
Document
Document
#: 1 Filed:
1-14 04/30/20
Filed 5/22/20
Page 17 ofPage
19 18
PageID
of 26
#:17

72. Defendants have been, and continue to be, unjustly enriched, to the detriment and

at the expense of the Class Members as a result of Defendants’ wrongful withholding of Agent

fees owed to Plaintiff and the Class.

73. Defendants have unjustly benefitted through the unlawful and wrongful collection

of money from the Federal Government through the SBA funding PPP loan applications and

continue to benefit to the detriment and at the expense of Plaintiff and Class Members.

74. Accordingly, Defendants should not be allowed to retain the proceeds from the

benefits conferred upon it by Plaintiff and the Class Members.

75. Therefore, Plaintiff seeks disgorgement of Defendants’ unjustly acquired profits

and other monetary benefits resulting from Defendants’ unlawful conduct, and seeks restitution

for the benefit of the Plaintiff and Class Members, in a manner to be determined by the Court.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class, prays for the following

relief:

A. For an Order certifying the Class as defined above, appointing Plaintiff as Class

representative for the Class, and appointing Plaintiff’s counsel as Class counsel for

the Class;

B. For an Order declaring Defendants’ actions to be unlawful;

C. For a declaration in accordance with SBA guidance that approximately 19.14% of

all administrative fees paid to all Defendants should be deposited into a mutually

agreeable fund or funds within 60 days, to be distributed to the designee/Agent of

each recipient of a PPP loan;

D. For equitable relief to Plaintiff and Class Members;

17
Case:
Case MDL
1:20-cv-02644
No. 2950
Document
Document
#: 1 Filed:
1-14 04/30/20
Filed 5/22/20
Page 18 ofPage
19 19
PageID
of 26
#:18

E. For an award of all recoverable compensatory, statutory, and other damages

sustained by Plaintiff and Class Members, and equitable relief including

disgorgement, unjust enrichment, and all other available relief under applicable

law;

F. For an award of punitive damages pursuant to applicable law, including, but not

limited to, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act

(ICFDBA), 815 ILCS 505/10a;

G. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses as permitted by applicable statutes and

law, including, but not limited to, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive

Business Practices Act (ICFDBA), 815 ILCS 505/10a;

H. For costs related to bringing this action;

I. For pre and post-judgment interest as allowed by law; and

J. Such further relief at law or in equity that this Court deems just and proper.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all claims and issues so triable under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 38(a).

Dated: April 30, 2020

ZUMPANO PATRICIOS & BRESNAHAN, LLC

/s/ Art Bresnahan____
Art Bresnahan, Esq.
Illinois Bar No. 6224557
829 N Milwaukee Avenue
Chicago, IL 60642
Telephone: (312) 924-3609
Facsimile: (312) 268-7179

18
Case:
Case MDL
1:20-cv-02644
No. 2950
Document
Document
#: 1 Filed:
1-14 04/30/20
Filed 5/22/20
Page 19 ofPage
19 20
PageID
of 26
#:19

ZUMPANO PATRICIOS & POPOK, PLLC

Michael S. Popok, Esq.
Mitchell G. Mandell, Esq.
Hamutal G. Lieberman, Esq.
417 Fifth Avenue, Suite 826
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 381-9999
Facsimile: (212) 320-0332
Pro Hac Vice Application in Process

GERAGOS & GERAGOS, PC

Mark Geragos, Esq.
Ben Meiselas, Esq.
Matt Hoesly, Esq.
644 South Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: (213) 625-3900
Fascimile: (213) 232-3255
Pro Hac Vice Application in Process

DHILLON LAW GROUP INC.

Harmeet K. Dhillon, Esq.
Nitoj P. Singh, Esq.
177 Post St., Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 433-1700
Fascimile: (415) 520-6593
Pro Hac Vice Application in Process

GRAYLAW GROUP, INC.

Michael E. Adler, Esq.
26500 Agoura Road, #102-127
Calabasas, CA 91302
Telephone: (818) 532-2833
Fascimile: (818) 532-2834
Pro Hac Vice Application in Process

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class

19
5/20/2020 Case MDL No. 2950 Document
CM/ECF LIVE, Ver1-14 Filed
6.3.2 - U.S. 05/22/20
District Court, Page 21 of 26
Northern Illinois

JANTZ,MIDP

United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.2 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:20-cv-02644

A.D. Sims, LLC v. Wintrust Financial Corporation et al Date Filed: 04/30/2020
Assigned to: Honorable Edmond E. Chang Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Demand: $9,999,000 Nature of Suit: 370 Other Fraud
Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question Jurisdiction: Diversity
Plaintiff
A.D. Sims, LLC represented by Hamutal G. Lieberman
On behalf of a class of similarly situated Zumpano Patricios & Popok, PLLC
businesses and individuals 417 Fifth Avenue
Suite 826
New York, NY 10016
(212) 381-9999
Email: acoluccio@zplaw.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael E. Adler
GrayLaw Group, Inc.
26500 Agoura Road
Suite 102-107
Calabasa, CA 91302
(818) 532-2833
Email: adrianna@graylawinc.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Popok
Zumpano Patricios & Popok, PLLC
417 Fifth Avenue
Suite 826
New York, NY 10016
(212) 381-9999
Email: acoluccio@zplaw.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mitchell G Mandell
Srour Fischer & Mandell LLP
546 Fifth Avenue
15th Floor
New York, NY 10036-5000
(212)840-9300
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Arthur Bresnahan
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP
https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?416954105002883-L_1_0-1 1/6
5/20/2020 Case MDL No. 2950 Document
CM/ECF LIVE, Ver1-14 Filed
6.3.2 - U.S. 05/22/20
District Court, Page 22 of 26
Northern Illinois

CH
155 North Wacker Drive
Suite 2700
Chicago, IL 60606-1720
312-399-1599
Email: acoluccio@zplaw.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Wintrust Financial Corporation represented by Christopher Steven Comstock
Mayer Brown LLP
71 S. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
(312) 464 8386
Email: ccomstock@mayerbrown.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lucia Nale
Mayer Brown LLP
71 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
(312) 782-0600
Email: LNale@mayerbrown.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel P Myler
Mayer Brown LLP
Mayer Brown LLP
71 S. Wacker Drive
Chicago
Chicago, IL 60606
United Sta
312-402-6237
Email: smyler@mayerbrown.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Vangel Panoff
Mayer Brown LLP
71 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
(312) 782-0600
Email: tpanoff@mayerbrown.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Wintrust Bank, N.A. represented by Christopher Steven Comstock
(See above for address)
https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?416954105002883-L_1_0-1 2/6
5/20/2020 Case MDL No. 2950 Document
CM/ECF LIVE, Ver1-14 Filed
6.3.2 - U.S. 05/22/20
District Court, Page 23 of 26
Northern Illinois

LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lucia Nale
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel P Myler
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Vangel Panoff
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Retail Capital LLC
doing business as
Credibly
Defendant
Modern Bank Management, LLC

Defendant
Modern Bank N.A.
Defendant
CRB Group Inc.
Defendant
Cross River Bank, Inc.

Defendant
BlueVine Capital Inc.

Defendant
Bank of America Co.
Defendant
Bank of America N.A.

Defendant
Doe Lenders 1 to 4,975
inclusive

Date Filed # Docket Text
04/24/2020 6 ORDER Third Amended General Order 20-0012 IN RE: CORONAVIRUS COVID-19
PUBLIC EMERGENCY Signed by the Chief Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on April 24,
https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?416954105002883-L_1_0-1 3/6
5/20/2020 Case MDL No. 2950 CM/ECF Document
LIVE, Ver1-14 Filed
6.3.2 - U.S. 05/22/20
District Court, Page 24 of 26
Northern Illinois

2020. All open cases are impacted by this Third Amended General Order. Parties are must
carefully review all obligations under this Order, including the requirement listed in
paragraph number 5 to file a joint written status report in most civil cases. See attached
Order. Signed by the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on 4/24/2020: Mailed notice (ec, )
(Entered: 05/01/2020)
04/30/2020 1 COMPLAINT filed by A.D. Sims, LLC; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 400, receipt number
0752-16979222. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit CARES Act PPP Funded Loans Through April
16, 2020)(Bresnahan, Arthur) (Entered: 04/30/2020)
04/30/2020 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Bresnahan, Arthur) (Entered: 04/30/2020)
04/30/2020 3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff A.D. Sims, LLC by Arthur Bresnahan (Bresnahan,
Arthur) (Entered: 04/30/2020)
04/30/2020 4 NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by A.D. Sims, LLC (Bresnahan,
Arthur) (Entered: 04/30/2020)
05/01/2020 CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. Designated as Magistrate Judge
the Honorable Beth W. Jantz. Case assignment: Random assignment. (txl, ) (Entered:
05/01/2020)
05/01/2020 5 NOTICE TO THE PARTIES - The Court is participating in the Mandatory Initial
Discovery Pilot (MIDP). The key features and deadlines are set forth in this Notice which
includes a link to the (MIDP) Standing Order and a Checklist for use by the parties. In
cases subject to the pilot, all parties must respond to the mandatory initial discovery
requests set forth in the Standing Order before initiating any further discovery in this case.
Please note: The discovery obligations in the Standing Order supersede the disclosures
required by Rule 26(a)(1). Any party seeking affirmative relief must serve a copy of the
following documents (Notice of Mandatory Initial Discovery and the Standing Order) on
each new party when the Complaint, Counterclaim, Crossclaim, or Third-Party Complaint
is served. (sxb, ) (Entered: 05/01/2020)
05/06/2020 7 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0752-
16990906. (Popok, Michael) (Entered: 05/06/2020)
05/06/2020 8 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0752-
16990933. (Mandell, Mitchell) (Entered: 05/06/2020)
05/06/2020 9 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0752-
16990959. (Lieberman, Hamutal) (Entered: 05/06/2020)
05/06/2020 SUMMONS Issued as to Defendants Bank of America Co., Bank of America N.A.,
BlueVine Capital Inc., CRB Group Inc., Modern Bank Management, LLC, Retail Capital
LLC, Wintrust Financial Corporation. (ng, ) (Entered: 05/06/2020)
05/07/2020 SUMMONS Issued as to Defendants Cross River Bank, Inc., Modern Bank N.A. (ng, )
(Entered: 05/07/2020)
05/07/2020 10 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Michael Popok's, Mitchell
Mandell's, and Hamutal Lieberman's motions for leave to appear pro hac vice for Plaintiff
7 , 8 , 9 are granted. motions for leave to appear pro hac vice for Plaintiff 8 , 9 are granted.
Initial status hearing set for 08/05/2020 at 8:30 a.m. If held, the initial status hearing will
be held telephonically. The parties shall provide a contact number to the courtroom deputy
(Michael_Wing@ilnd.uscourts.gov) by 1:00 p.m. on the prior business day. The parties
must file a joint initial status report with the content described in the attached status report
requirements 07/24/2020. Plaintiff must still file the report even if not all Defendants have
been served or have responded to requests to craft a joint report. Because the Procedures
are occasionally revised, counsel must read them anew even if counsel has appeared before
https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?416954105002883-L_1_0-1 4/6
5/20/2020 Case MDL No. 2950 CM/ECFDocument
LIVE, Ver1-14 Filed
6.3.2 - U.S. 05/22/20
District Court, Page 25 of 26
Northern Illinois

Judge Chang in other cases. Mailed notice (Attachments: # 1 Status Report Requirements)
(mw, ) (Entered: 05/07/2020)
05/07/2020 SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant Wintrust Bank, N.A. (ng, ) (Entered: 05/07/2020)
05/11/2020 11 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0752-
17002072. (Adler, Michael) (Entered: 05/11/2020)
05/11/2020 12 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Michael E.Adler's motion for
leave to appear pro hac vice for Plaintiff 11 is granted. Mailed notice (mw, ) (Entered:
05/11/2020)
05/12/2020 13 SUMMONS Returned Executed by A.D. Sims, LLC as to Bank of America Co. on
5/8/2020, answer due 5/29/2020. (Popok, Michael) (Entered: 05/12/2020)
05/12/2020 14 SUMMONS Returned Executed by A.D. Sims, LLC as to BlueVine Capital Inc. on
5/8/2020, answer due 5/29/2020. (Popok, Michael) (Entered: 05/12/2020)
05/12/2020 15 SUMMONS Returned Executed by A.D. Sims, LLC as to CRB Group Inc. on 5/8/2020,
answer due 5/29/2020. (Popok, Michael) (Entered: 05/12/2020)
05/12/2020 16 SUMMONS Returned Executed by A.D. Sims, LLC as to Modern Bank Management,
LLC on 5/8/2020, answer due 5/29/2020. (Popok, Michael) (Entered: 05/12/2020)
05/12/2020 17 SUMMONS Returned Executed by A.D. Sims, LLC as to Wintrust Bank, N.A. on
5/11/2020, answer due 6/1/2020. (Popok, Michael) (Entered: 05/12/2020)
05/12/2020 18 SUMMONS Returned Executed by A.D. Sims, LLC as to Wintrust Financial Corporation
on 5/11/2020, answer due 6/1/2020. (Popok, Michael) (Entered: 05/12/2020)
05/13/2020 19 SUMMONS Returned Executed by A.D. Sims, LLC as to Bank of America N.A. on
5/12/2020, answer due 6/2/2020. (Popok, Michael) (Entered: 05/13/2020)
05/14/2020 20 SUMMONS Returned Executed by A.D. Sims, LLC as to Cross River Bank, Inc. on
5/11/2020, answer due 6/1/2020. (Popok, Michael) (Entered: 05/14/2020)
05/19/2020 21 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Wintrust Bank, N.A., Wintrust Financial
Corporation by Lucia Nale (Nale, Lucia) (Entered: 05/19/2020)
05/19/2020 22 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Wintrust Bank, N.A., Wintrust Financial
Corporation by Thomas Vangel Panoff (Panoff, Thomas) (Entered: 05/19/2020)
05/19/2020 23 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Wintrust Bank, N.A., Wintrust Financial
Corporation by Samuel P Myler (Myler, Samuel) (Entered: 05/19/2020)
05/19/2020 24 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Wintrust Bank, N.A., Wintrust Financial
Corporation by Christopher Steven Comstock (Comstock, Christopher) (Entered:
05/19/2020)
05/19/2020 25 NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Wintrust Bank, N.A.,
Wintrust Financial Corporation (Panoff, Thomas) (Entered: 05/19/2020)
05/19/2020 ALIAS Summons Issued as to Defendant CRB Group Inc. (ng, ) (Entered: 05/19/2020)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
05/20/2020 12:09:00
PACER tlynch01:4679668:4202770 Client Code: 7111-2600
https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?416954105002883-L_1_0-1 5/6
5/20/2020 Case MDL No. 2950 Document
CM/ECF LIVE, Ver1-14 Filed
6.3.2 - U.S. 05/22/20
District Court, Page 26 of 26
Northern Illinois
Login:
Search 1:20-cv-
Description: Docket Report
Criteria: 02644
Billable
4 Cost: 0.40
Pages:

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?416954105002883-L_1_0-1 6/6

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.jpml.1161172.1.14.pdf
Size: 436,017 bytes
SHA-256: 888b5df4f4856973d27ab182392752b3df88adebad596af1688d2610a699393e
Our copy: gov.uscourts.jpml.1161172.1.14.pdf
Original: No public link identified.

Exhibit I - Complaint - N.D. Ill. 1:20-cv-02644 — Agent Fee Litigation (Dkt. 1.14)

Summary

Full text

File and source

Related records