Court filing

Exhibit B — Agent Fee Litigation (Dkt. 98.4)

Summary

Exhibit B to Document 98-4, filed June 10, 2020 in MDL No. 2950. It reproduces the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York civil docket for James Quinn v. Signature Bank Corp. et al, Case #: 1:20-cv-04144-JSR, filed 05/29/2020 before Judge Jed S. Rakoff with a demand of $5,000,000, together with the amended complaint filed on that docket on June 3, 2020. The docket entries record the complaint, summons requests, party and deficiency notices, acceptance of the case as related, a reassignment of the case, and an initial conference. The amended complaint is a putative class action by an agent seeking payment of agent fees out of the compensation the defendant lenders received for processing PPP loans, citing the CARES Act. It recites that the Paycheck Protection Program initially authorized up to $349 billion and was later given $310 billion more. The exhibit is 31 pages.

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 98-4 Filed 06/10/20 Page 1 of 31

EXHIBIT B
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 98-4 Filed 06/10/20 Page 2 of 31

ECF,RELATED
U.S. District Court
Southern District of New York (Foley Square)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:20−cv−04144−JSR

James Quinn v. Signature Bank Corp. et al Date Filed: 05/29/2020
Assigned to: Judge Jed S. Rakoff Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Demand: $5,000,000 Nature of Suit: 190 Contract: Other
Related Case: 1:20−cv−04100−JSR Jurisdiction: Diversity
Cause: 28:1332df Diversity−Contract Default
Plaintiff
James Quinn represented by Elaine Simek Kusel
individually and on behalf of all others McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP
similarly situated 3281 E. Guasti Road, Suite 100
TERMINATED: 06/04/2020 Ontario, CA 91761
doing business as 909−557−1250
Q Financial Services Fax: 909−557−1275
TERMINATED: 06/04/2020 Email: esk@mccunewright.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
James Quinn represented by Elaine Simek Kusel
individually and on behalf of all others (See above for address)
similarly situated LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Signature Bank Corp.

Defendant
Signature Bank

Defendant
Signature Financial LLC

Defendant
Does 1 through 100, inclusive

Date Filed # Docket Text
05/29/2020 1 COMPLAINT against Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Signature Bank, Signature Bank
Corp., Signature Financial LLC. (Filing Fee $ 400.00, Receipt Number
ANYSDC−20039560)Document filed by James Quinn doing business as Q Financial
Services, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated..(Kusel, Elaine)
(Entered: 05/29/2020)
05/29/2020 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed..(Kusel, Elaine) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
05/29/2020 3 REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to Signature Bank Corp., re: 1
Complaint,. Document filed by James Quinn doing business as Q Financial Services,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated..(Kusel, Elaine) (Entered:
05/29/2020)
05/29/2020 4 REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to Signature Financial LLC, re: 1
Complaint,. Document filed by James Quinn doing business as Q Financial Services,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated..(Kusel, Elaine) (Entered:
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 98-4 Filed 06/10/20 Page 3 of 31

05/29/2020)
05/29/2020 5 REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to Signature Bank, re: 1 Complaint,.
Document filed by James Quinn doing business as Q Financial Services, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated..(Kusel, Elaine) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
06/01/2020 CASE OPENING INITIAL ASSIGNMENT NOTICE: The above−entitled action is
assigned to Judge Katherine Polk Failla. Please download and review the Individual
Practices of the assigned District Judge, located at
https://nysd.uscourts.gov/judges/district−judges. Attorneys are responsible for
providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such.
Please download and review the ECF Rules and Instructions, located at
https://nysd.uscourts.gov/rules/ecf−related−instructions..(pne) (Entered: 06/01/2020)
06/01/2020 Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger is so designated. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(1) parties are notified that they may consent
to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. Parties who wish to consent may
access the necessary form at the following link:
https://nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2018−06/AO−3.pdf. (pne) (Entered:
06/01/2020)
06/01/2020 Case Designated ECF. (pne) (Entered: 06/01/2020)
06/01/2020 ***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING PARTY MODIFICATION. Notice
to attorney Elaine Simek Kusel. The party information for the following
party/parties has been modified: James Quinn, Signature Bank, Does 1 through
100, inclusive. The information for the party/parties has been modified for the
following reason/reasons: party role was entered incorrectly; party text was
entered incorrectly; alias party information was entered incorrectly. (pne)
(Entered: 06/01/2020)
06/01/2020 ***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING CIVIL CASE OPENING
STATISTICAL ERROR CORRECTION: Notice to attorney Elaine Simek Kusel.
The following case opening statistical information was erroneously
selected/entered: Dollar Demand $500,000,000,000. The following correction(s)
have been made to your case entry: the Dollar Demand has been modified to
$5,000,000. (pne) (Entered: 06/01/2020)
06/01/2020 6 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED as to Signature Bank..(pne) (Entered:
06/01/2020)
06/01/2020 7 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED as to Signature Financial LLC..(pne) (Entered:
06/01/2020)
06/01/2020 8 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED as to Signature Bank Corp...(pne) (Entered:
06/01/2020)
06/02/2020 9 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT PLEADING − FILER ERROR − AMENDED
COMPLAINT amending 1 Complaint, against Does 1 through 100, inclusive,
Signature Bank, Signature Bank Corp., Signature Financial LLC with JURY
DEMAND.Document filed by James Quinn. Related document: 1 Complaint,..(Kusel,
Elaine) Modified on 6/3/2020 (pne). (Entered: 06/02/2020)
06/02/2020 10 FILING ERROR − WRONG EVENT TYPE SELECTED FROM MENU −
REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to Signature Bank Corp., re: 9
Amended Complaint. Document filed by James Quinn..(Kusel, Elaine) Modified on
6/3/2020 (pne). (Entered: 06/02/2020)
06/02/2020 11 FILING ERROR − WRONG EVENT TYPE SELECTED FROM MENU −
REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to Signature Bank, re: 9 Amended
Complaint. Document filed by James Quinn..(Kusel, Elaine) Modified on 6/3/2020
(pne). (Entered: 06/02/2020)
06/02/2020 12 FILING ERROR − WRONG EVENT TYPE SELECTED FROM MENU −
REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to Signature Financial LLC, re: 9
Amended Complaint. Document filed by James Quinn..(Kusel, Elaine) Modified on
6/3/2020 (pne). (Entered: 06/02/2020)
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 98-4 Filed 06/10/20 Page 4 of 31

06/02/2020 13 RELATED CASE AFFIRMATION of James Quinn re: that this action be filed as
related to 20−cv−04100. Document filed by James Quinn..(Kusel, Elaine) (Entered:
06/02/2020)
06/03/2020 ***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING DEFICIENT PLEADING. Notice
to Attorney Elaine Simek Kusel to RE−FILE re: Document No. 9 Amended
Complaint. The filing is deficient for the following reason(s): all of the parties
listed on the pleading were not entered on CM ECF; party name has been
modified on pleading caption; 'JAMES QUINN' must be added to the case as a
new party without an alias; the wrong filer/filers were selected for the pleading.
Docket the event type Add Party to Pleading found under the event list
Complaints and Other Initiating Documents.. Re−file the pleading using the event
type Amended Complaint found under the event list Complaints and Other
Initiating Documents − attach the PDF − select the individually named filer/filers
− select the individually named party/parties the pleading is against. (pne)
(Entered: 06/03/2020)
06/03/2020 ***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING DEFICIENT REQUEST FOR
ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS. Notice to Attorney Elaine Simek Kusel to RE−FILE
Document No. 12 Request for Issuance of Summons, 11 Request for Issuance of
Summons, 10 Request for Issuance of Summons. The filing is deficient for the
following reason(s): the wrong event type was used to file the request for issuance
of summons; summonses have already been issued for these parties; the summons
requests were not processed due to the deficient pleading; re−file your summons
requests after you have properly re−filed your pleading. Re−file the document
using the event type Request for Issuance of AMENDED Summons found under
the event list Service of Process − select the correct filer/filers − and attach the
summons form PDF. (pne) (Entered: 06/03/2020)
06/03/2020 14 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT PLEADING − FILED AGAINST PARTY
ERROR − AMENDED COMPLAINT amending 9 Amended Complaint, against
Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Signature Bank, Signature Bank Corp., Signature
Financial LLC, James Quinn with JURY DEMAND.Document filed by James Quinn.
Related document: 9 Amended Complaint,..(Kusel, Elaine) Modified on 6/3/2020
(jgo). (Entered: 06/03/2020)
06/03/2020 15 AMENDED COMPLAINT amending 1 Complaint, against Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, Signature Bank, Signature Bank Corp., Signature Financial LLC with JURY
DEMAND.Document filed by James Quinn. Related document: 1 Complaint,..(Kusel,
Elaine) (Entered: 06/03/2020)
06/03/2020 16 REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF AMENDED SUMMONS as to Signature Bank
Corp., re: 15 Amended Complaint. Document filed by James Quinn..(Kusel, Elaine)
(Entered: 06/03/2020)
06/03/2020 17 REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF AMENDED SUMMONS as to Signature Bank, re:
15 Amended Complaint. Document filed by James Quinn..(Kusel, Elaine) (Entered:
06/03/2020)
06/03/2020 18 REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF AMENDED SUMMONS as to Signature Financial
LLC, re: 15 Amended Complaint. Document filed by James Quinn..(Kusel, Elaine)
(Entered: 06/03/2020)
06/04/2020 ***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING PARTY MODIFICATION. Notice
to attorney Elaine Simek Kusel. The party information for the following
party/parties has been modified: James Quinn. The information for the
party/parties has been modified for the following reason/reasons: party text was
omitted;. (jgo) (Entered: 06/04/2020)
06/04/2020 19 ELECTRONIC AMENDED SUMMONS ISSUED as to Signature Bank Corp...(jgo)
(Entered: 06/04/2020)
06/04/2020 20 ELECTRONIC AMENDED SUMMONS ISSUED as to Signature Bank..(jgo)
(Entered: 06/04/2020)
06/04/2020 21 ELECTRONIC AMENDED SUMMONS ISSUED as to Signature Financial
LLC..(jgo) (Entered: 06/04/2020)
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 98-4 Filed 06/10/20 Page 5 of 31

06/08/2020 CASE ACCEPTED AS RELATED. Create association to 1:20−cv−04100−JSR.
Notice of Assignment to follow. (ad) (Entered: 06/08/2020)
06/08/2020 Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang is so redesignated. (ad) (Entered: 06/08/2020)
06/08/2020 NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT to Judge Jed S. Rakoff. Judge Katherine Polk
Failla is no longer assigned to the case. (ad) (Entered: 06/08/2020)
06/09/2020 22 NOTICE OF COURT CONFERENCE: Initial Conference set for 6/23/2020 via
teleconference, at 11:00 AM before Judge Jed S. Rakoff, with the following dial−in
information: − USA Toll−Free: (888) 363−4735 − USA Caller Paid/International Toll:
(215) 446−3657 − Access Code: 1086415, and as further set forth in this order.
(Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 6/9/2020) (jwh) (Entered: 06/09/2020)
Case
Case MDL No. 2950 Document
1:20-cv-04144-KPF 98-415 Filed
Document Filed06/10/20 Page 16 of
06/03/20 Page of 26
31

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

James Quinn, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,
20-cv-4144
v.
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Signature Bank Corp; Signature Bank; Signature
Financial LLC; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

Plaintiff James Quinn (“Plaintiff”), brings this Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury

Trial against Defendant Signature Bank Corp (“SBC”), Defendant Signature Bank (“Signature Bank”)

and Defendant Signature Financial LLC (“Signature Financial”, together with Signature Bank,

“Defendants”) Does 1 through 100, inclusive, seeking compensation from Defendants, who refuse to

comply with the CARES Act that requires them to pay out of the compensation it received for

processing PPP loans, for services Plaintiff and a large number of other agents rendered on behalf of

recipients of Small Business Administration (“SBA”) emergency loans. Plaintiff alleges as follows

upon personal knowledge as to himself and his own acts and experiences, and, as to all other matters,

upon information and belief.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case
Case MDL No. 2950 Document
1:20-cv-04144-KPF 98-415 Filed
Document Filed06/10/20 Page 27 of
06/03/20 Page of 26
31

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. In response to the shut-down of virtually every business across all non-essential

industries due to COVID-19, the federal government has raced over the past few months to ease the

impact of the shut-down on the U.S. economy. In order to keep afloat small businesses, and to

encourage those businesses to avoid massive worker layoffs and furloughs further damaging the

economy, Congress decided to create an economic relief program to distribute money to small

businesses.

2. In order to distribute the money swiftly to small businesses, Congress decided to utilize

the nation’s financial institutions to take applications and distribute the funds that would be fully

guaranteed by the federal government. However, in order to avoid delay, Congress decided that the

financial institutions would not be required to verify the accuracy of the applications. Instead, the

burden to provide accurate information was put directly and solely on the small businesses submitting

applications.

3. The applications would need to be simple and the amount of the economic relief would

be based on historical payroll information with specific limitations. However, as the lenders would not

be verifying the information, there would need to be a number of representations and certifications, and

specific warnings because that failure to provide true and accurate information could subject the small

business owner to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

4. In order for these small businesses to be able to make timely, truthful and accurate

applications, Congress understood that small businesses would need assistance from the nation’s

professional accountants, tax preparers, financial advisors, attorneys, and other such agents normally

relied upon by small businesses.

-1-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case
Case MDL No. 2950 Document
1:20-cv-04144-KPF 98-415 Filed
Document Filed06/10/20 Page 38 of
06/03/20 Page of 26
31

5. On March 27, 2020, Congress passed the SBA’s Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”)

which initially authorized up to $349 billion in forgivable loans to small businesses to cover payroll and

other expenses (PPP I). After the initial funds quickly dried up, Congress added $310 billion additional

dollars to the program (PPP II).

6. The PPP was designed to be fast and straightforward, allowing business to apply through

SBA-approved lenders and await approval. Once approved, lenders would be compensated in the form

of a generous origination fee paid by the federal government, with the requirement that the lender would

be responsible for paying the fee owed to the loan applicant’s agent (e.g., attorney or accountant).

However, the PPP did not require nor layout any specific form or process to be followed between the

lender and the agent for the agent to qualify to receive their portion of the compensation. Any such

requirement would lead to delays as the lender and agent negotiated and entered into an agreement. This

kind of delay is exactly the type that would cause unacceptable devastating results for the borrowers.

Not only would this potentially cause a dangerous delay in the lending, it created the unacceptable

incentive for the lenders to prioritize applications without agent fees over those with agent fees. It was

antithetical to the whole purpose of the PPP to allow conflict over fees between the agent and the lender

to slow down or eliminate funds that were vital for both the small business owner AND the employees

and consumers that relied on the small business for income.

7. Both the lender and the agents were specifically forbidden by the PPP from charging the

small business borrower any amounts for the loan or the assistance in preparing the application for the

loan. The amount of the total compensation and the allocation between the lender and the agents

assisting the borrowers in preparing the application was specifically set out in the PPP. For the majority

of loans (those under $350,000), the lender would receive an amount equal to 5% of the loan as

compensation, and if the borrower used an agent such as a CPA or accountant, the lender was to pay an

-2-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case
Case MDL No. 2950 Document
1:20-cv-04144-KPF 98-415 Filed
Document Filed06/10/20 Page 49 of
06/03/20 Page of 26
31

amount equal to 1% of the loan amount to the agent. In other words, compensation from the federal

government to the lender and the borrower’s agent was allocated as 80% to the lender and 20% to the

CPA or attorney assisting the small business borrower.

8. Defendants are amongst the top 40 largest banks in the country and are headquartered in

Manhattan, New York City. Defendants reported that as of April 17, 2020, over $500 million in loans

submitted through Signature Bank have been improved in the first round of funding. 1 The second round

of funding has not yet been reported. Signature Bank also neglected to report the number of loans

approved as well as the average amount of PPP loan approved by Defendants. Assuming a conservative

average fee of four percent, they have, accordingly, been allocated over $20 million in origination fees,

from which they were required to pay the agents who assisted the borrowers in submitting applications,

which is $5 million at a fee of one percent.

9. However, Defendants apparently decided that they do not need to complete the final step

of the process and based on information and belief have refused to pay the agents who assisted PPP loan

recipients with their applications. This practice seemed to be a deliberate scheme from the beginning as

even though they were required to pay agents that assisted in the application process, Defendants did not

set up a structure or ask any questions to determine whether borrowers utilized an agent in completing

applications. It appears that this scheme was to claim ignorance of the existence of the agent as an

excuse not to pay the agent its share of the compensation. This refusal is harming accountants,

attorneys, and other agents who dropped everything (in the midst of tax season) to assist their customers

in filling out these vital loan applications correctly and in compliance with the PPP, and who were

specifically only allowed to be paid for these services out of the compensation paid to the lender. The

1 See Signature Bank Letter to Signature Bank Clients, available at https://www.signatureny.com/docs/default-
source/default-document-library/ppp-client-update-letter-april-17-2020.pdf?sfvrsn=3ec09668_0 (last accessed May 28,
2020).

-3-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case
CaseMDL No. 2950 Document
1:20-cv-04144-KPF 98-4 15 Filed
Document Filed06/10/20
06/03/20 Page
Page 10
5 ofof26
31

Defendants’ failure to pay agents is in blatant violation of PPP regulations stating that agent fees “will

be paid by the lender out of the fees the lender receives from SBA.”

10. These agents, including Plaintiff, have no other recourse for collecting fees for assisting

borrowers on PPP loan applications because the PPP regulations delegate the responsibility for paying

agents to the lenders alone. And yet, Defendants have disregarded the regulations and refused to pay

agents who assisted small businesses in receiving PPP funds.

11. Plaintiff has been harmed by Defendants’ practice. As a CPA firm that does payroll and

other small business support functions, Plaintiff assisted small business clients who submitted an

application to Defendants and was then funded through the PPP program. Based on information and

belief, Defendants have received the 5% compensation related to this loan based upon the amount of the

loan but have not paid Plaintiff his 1% agent fee related to the loan.

12. As a result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Plaintiff and a large number of others like

him have been deprived of payment for their critical work in supporting their clients’ PPP loan

applications. As such, Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial in order

to vindicate their rights and those of agents everywhere who are similarly situated, and to force

Defendants to account for their blatant violation of the PPP and to pay agents their portion of the

compensation.

PARTIES

13. Plaintiff Quinn is a former CPA that assists small businesses with accounting, financial

and financing consulting services. His place of business is located in Marco Island, Florida.

14. Defendant Signature Bank Corp is a registered commercial bank incorporated in the state

of Colorado, with its principal place of business located at 5414 West 27th Street, Greeley Colorado,

-4-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case
CaseMDL No. 2950 Document
1:20-cv-04144-KPF 98-4 15 Filed
Document Filed06/10/20
06/03/20 Page
Page 11
6 ofof26
31

80634. SBC conducts substantial business throughout this District and the State of New York, and

throughout the United States.

15. Signature Bank is a New York-based full-service commercial bank with thirty-one (31)

private client offices and two client accommodation offices located throughout New York, Connecticut,

and California. Signature Bank is headquartered at 565 Fifth Avenue, New York City, New York

10017.

16. Signature Financial LLC is a subsidiary of Signature Bank and provides equipment

finance and leasing, headquartered at 225 Broad Hollow Road, Melville, New York, 11747.

17. In this Complaint, references made to any act of any Defendants shall be deemed to mean

that officers, directors, agents, employees, or representatives of the Defendants named in this lawsuit

committed or authorized such acts, or failed and/or omitted to adequately supervise or properly control

or direct their employees while engaged in the management, direction, operation or control of the affairs

of the Defendants and did so while acting within the scope of their employment or agency.

18. Plaintiff is unaware of the names, identities or capacities of the Defendants sued as Doe

Defendants 1 through 100, but is informed and believes and thereon alleges that such fictitiously-named

defendants are responsible in some manner for the damages and unfair business practices and violation

of rights as described herein. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to state the true names, identities, or

capacities of such fictitiously-named Defendants when ascertained.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

19. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under the Class Action Fairness

Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), because, as to the proposed Class and Subclasses, (a) at least one member of

the proposed Class, which consists of at least 100 members, is a citizen of a different state than

-5-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case
CaseMDL No. 2950 Document
1:20-cv-04144-KPF 98-4 15 Filed
Document Filed06/10/20
06/03/20 Page
Page 12
7 ofof26
31

Defendants; (b) the claims of the proposed Class Members exceed $5,000,000 in the aggregate,

exclusive of interest and costs, and (c) none of the exceptions under that subsection apply to this action.

20. Personal jurisdiction over Defendants is proper because Defendants transact business in

the State of New York, and a substantial number of the events giving rise to the claims alleged herein

took place in New York.

21. This Court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 because an

actual controversy exists between the parties as to their respective rights and obligations under 85 Fed.

Reg. 20816 § (4)(c) (hereinafter, the “PPP regulations”).

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

substantial part of the events, acts or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this judicial District,

including work performed by Plaintiff on behalf of business clients within this District. Further,

Defendants are headquartered in this judicial District.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

23. The spread of COVID-19 was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization

(“WHO”) on March 11, 2020.

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

(COVID-19) Emergency Declaration, 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.”

25. The Federal Government expressly recognized that with the COVID-19 emergency,

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

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

virus.” 2

2
See Business Loan Program Temporary Changes; Paycheck Protection Program, 13 CFR Part 120, Interim Final
Rule (“SBA PPP Final Rule”).

-6-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case
CaseMDL No. 2950 Document
1:20-cv-04144-KPF 98-4 15 Filed
Document Filed06/10/20
06/03/20 Page
Page 13
8 ofof26
31

26. The economic fallout from COVID-19, and the national response to it, was immediate

and enormous. As “stay at home” issues were ordered by states across the nation, countless businesses

were forced by law to overhaul their business models, scale back their business dramatically, or shutter–

either temporarily or permanently. Business were further harmed as the public began to avoid all public

spaces. Furloughs and layoffs were rampant in the private sector.

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

and to overwhelming public pressure, the U.S. Senate passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and

Economic Security Act, or the CARES Act. The CARES Act was passed by the House of

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

Amounting to approximately $2 trillion, the CARES Act was the single-largest economic stimulus bill

in American history.

28. Critically, the CARES Act created a $659 billion loan program for business with fewer

than five hundred employees, called the “Paycheck Protection Program” (“PPP”) 3. The goal of the PPP

was 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 fully federally

guaranteed and administered by the Small Business Administration (“SBA”). 4

29. Basically, PPP loans operate more like grants if the recipient follows certain rules,

including that at least 75 percent of the loan goes toward payroll. 5 Businesses that follow the rules are

permitted to submit a request to their SBA lender for total forgiveness. Otherwise, the loan matures in

two years and carries a one percent interest rate. 6

3
The first phase of the PPP was for $349 billion, and when that quickly ran out, a second phase was funded for $310
billion.
4
Small Bus. Admin., Docket No. SBA-2020-0015, 13 CFR Part 120, Paycheck Protection Program 3245-AH34,
Interim Final Rule, 85 Fed. Reg. 20814 § (2)(o) (Apr. 15, 2020).
5
85 Fed. Reg. 20812 § (2)(e); id. at 20813 § (2)(o).
6
Id. at 20813 § (2)(j).

-7-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case
CaseMDL No. 2950 Document
1:20-cv-04144-KPF 98-4 15 Filed
Document Filed06/10/20
06/03/20 Page
Page 14
9 ofof26
31

30. The SBA was charged with creating the PPP implementing regulations. It issued the first

interim final rule (“Initial Rule”) on April 2, 2020, allowing businesses to begin applying for PPP loans

with all SBA lenders on April 3, 2020.

31. An important piece of the PPP was that applications were to be processed and funded on

a “first-come, first-served” basis—that is, the SBA was to process applications and distribute funds

based on the order in which they were received. This made the SBA’s list of approved lenders key

gatekeepers in this process, which the lenders certainly understood. Because the PPP was to be

administered only through SBA-approved lenders, and because applicants were applying for funds from

the single pot allocated for the program, submitting an accurate application for a loan through the SBA-

approved lender as quickly as possible was critical.

32. Congress added an incentive for the SBA-affiliated lenders, knowing they would face a

crush of PPP loan applications: for each loan processed and approved, the bank would receive an

origination fee of five percent for loans up to $350,000; three percent for loans between $350,000 and

$2 million; and one percent for loans between $2 million and $10 million. 7

33. With similar incentives in mind, Congress and the SBA also carved out a specific benefit

for the countless accountants, attorneys, and advisors who would need to lead or assist their clients in

preparing and filing PPP loan applications. These individuals and entities are referred to as “agents” in

the CARES Act and PPP implementing regulations.

34. As explained in an Information Sheet provided for “lenders,” the SBA states that ‘[a]n

‘Agent’ is an authorized representative and can be: an attorney; an accountant; a consultant; someone

who prepares an applicant’s application for financial assistance and is employed and compensated by the

applicant; someone who assists a lender with originating, disbursing, servicing, liquidating, or litigating

7
Id.

-8-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case
Case MDL No. 2950 Document
1:20-cv-04144-KPF 98-415 Filed
Document Filed06/10/20 Page 10
06/03/20 Page 15 of
of 26
31

SBA loans; a loan broker; or any other individual or entity representing an applicant by conducting

business with the SBA.” 8

35. In addition, 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 (“Agent Fees”): one percent (1%) for loans up to $350,000; 0.50% for loans between $350,000

and $2 million; and 0.25% for loans between $2 million and $10 million. 9

36. Within this context, Congress and the SBA set up a straightforward system for the

disbursement of PPP loan funds where the applicant is assisted by an agent: (i) the agent prepares the

application and/or necessary supporting documents for the client’s application; (ii) the client applies for

the PPP loan through the lender; (iii) the lender submits the application to the SBA; (iv) the SBA

approves the loan and sends the client the money, through the lender, and eventually pays the lender’s

origination fee; and (v) the agent submits the request for fee payment to the lender with the agent’s fee

based upon (a) the work performed for the client and (b) the caps on agent fees provided by the SBA’s

PPP regulations.

37. Congress and the SBA did not set up a process or requirements to be followed by either

the lender or the agent for the agent to qualify to receive the agency portion of the fee. That would have

had devastating consequences to the ability of the program to fulfill its mission to small business owners

and their consumer employees. Based on information and belief, consistent with the understanding that

there was not any particular process required of agents to get paid, Defendants did not include a request

8
U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Information Sheet Lenders,
https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136PPP%20%Lender%20Information%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf (last accessed May 25,
2020).
9
85 Fed. Reg. 20816 § (4)(c).

-9-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case
Case MDL No. 2950 Document
1:20-cv-04144-KPF 98-415 Filed
Document Filed06/10/20 Page 11
06/03/20 Page 16 of
of 26
31

for agent information in the application process or provide any systematic mechanism or process for the

borrower to list that an agent had assisted them in the preparation of the application.

38. Unfortunately, Defendants are refusing to pay the fees of agents for their assistance in

providing an accurate and truthful application for funding.

39. This refusal is a company-wide policy. Plaintiff inquired as to payment after his client’s

PPP loan was funded and received an email response from Lucy Mazany, Senior Vice President—Group

Director at Signature Bank, relaying a response from Defendants’ legal counsel that Signature:

is not required to pay a borrowers’ agent unless the agent is disclosed to Signature
prior to borrower submitting its PPP application and Signature affirmatively
agrees to pay the agent at that time. Further, Signature will only then pay fees to
an agent if Signature, the agent and borrower have entered into a binding
agreements [sic] with respect to the services and fees of the agent…prior to the
disbursement of the PPP loan….Given that Signature never agreed to pay the agent
and that the agent, borrower, and Signature have not entered into required
agreements for the fee, Signature will not pay any fees to any purported borrower
agents in connection with the PPP loan.

40. Plaintiff Quinn signed the clients’ PPP loan applications as the “authorized

representative” of all five clients and indicated “Financial Advisor/CPA” on the title line. Additionally,

the financial package submitted the client’s PPP loan application to Signature Bank was on Plaintiff’s

letterhead. Plaintiff Quinn also submitted an agency letter with the application submitted to Signature

Bank.

41. Defendants’ policy is puzzling given the fact that not only did Plaintiff and his client

disclose Plaintiff as the “authorized representative” and agent of client with submission with the PPP

application, but Defendants set up the application process without even asking the borrower if they

-10-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case
Case MDL No. 2950 Document
1:20-cv-04144-KPF 98-415 Filed
Document Filed06/10/20 Page 12
06/03/20 Page 17 of
of 26
31

utilized the assistance of an agent, suggests that the Defendants did not want to have any record of the

agent information in their files. 10

42. This policy of refusal to pay to agents “Agent Fees” that are due, and that only the lenders

are authorized to pay, stands as an immediate threat to these agents’ abilities to receive payment. In the

midst of an unprecedented economic/pandemic crisis, this policy represents short-sighted profit-padding

at best, and blatantly illegal conduct, at worst.

43. This policy is surprising in light of Defendants’ acknowledgement on their website, that it

“realizes the importance of these SBA funds” and assures “we are doing everything we can to have your

application ready” and the Bank “must review” all applications first before submission to the SBA for

approval. 11 Therefore, although neither borrowers nor their agents were provided any instructions prior

to submission of PPP loan applications, Defendants reviewed the submission, per their policy, and knew

of the agency relationship of Plaintiff and client. Defendants then retroactively established an ad hoc

policy that Signature Bank’s authorization was needed, even though such lender authorization is not

required in the PPP regulations.

44. Refusing to pay Agent Fees is also inconsistent with agreements Defendants made in

order to become approved PPP lenders. Specifically, based on information and belief, Defendants were

required to fill out and sign the “CARES Act Section 1102 Lender Agreement” for each loan. 12 This

submission requires each putative PPP lender to certify, under penalty of perjury, that it (i) “is in

compliance and will maintain compliance with all applicable requirements of the [PPP], and PPP Loan

10
Signature’s Instructions for Applying Online for a Paycheck Protection Program Loan from Signature Bank (Apr. 6,
2020), available at https://www.signatureny.com/docs/default-source/default-document-library/cares-act-letter-
040620.pdf?sfvrsn=17b89668_0 (last visited May 28, 2020).
11
Signature Bank Letter ( Apr. 17, 2020, 2020), https://www.signatureny.com/docs/default-source/default-document-
library/ppp-client-update-letter-april-17-2020.pdf?sfvrsn=3ec09668_0 (last accessed May 28, 2020).
12
U.S. Small Bus. Admin., CARES Act Section 1102 Lender Agreement,
https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/PP--Agreement-for-New-Lenders-Banks-Credit-Unions-FCS-w-seal-
fillable.pdf (last accessed May 25, 2020).

-11-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case
Case MDL No. 2950 Document
1:20-cv-04144-KPF 98-415 Filed
Document Filed06/10/20 Page 13
06/03/20 Page 18 of
of 26
31

Program Requirements[,]” (ii) will “service and liquidate all covered loans made under the Paycheck

Protection Program in accordance with PPP Loan Requirements[,] and (iii) will “close and disburse each

covered loan in accordance with the terms and conditions of the PPP Authorization and PPP Loan

Requirements.”

45. To the extent Defendants had to certify, at any point, that they would follow the PPP’s

regulations in making PPP loans, they were not being truthful. Defendants’ policy to refuse to pay

Agent Fees directly violates the PPP’s implementing regulations.

46. It is pursuant to these representations that Signature Bank has been allowed to secure well

over $5 million in funding for loan recipients. Even at an average 4% compensation for these loans,

Signature Bank has or will receive eligible to receive over $20 million in origination fees, from which

they were required to pay agents approximately $5 million.

47. Knowing that they were required to pay agents a percentage of PPP loan origination fees

if an agent assisted an applicant in preparing and submitting the application, Defendants elected not to

ask borrowers whether they utilized an “agent” to assist them in the application process and have not

paid Plaintiff or similarly situated agents compensation from funded PPP loans.

PLAINTIFF JAMES QUINN’S EXPERIENCE

48. Plaintiff Quinn is a former CPA that assists small businesses with accounting, financial

and financing consulting services. His place of business is located in Marco Island, Florida, and he has

provided financial consulting services to clients in the New York area for over thirty (30) years.

49. Plaintiff Quinn provided accounting, financial and financing consulting services to a

group of small businesses. He was requested by one such client who was located in New York City, NY

to assist it with the preparation and filing of the PPP loan application with Signature Bank. This PPP

-12-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case
Case MDL No. 2950 Document
1:20-cv-04144-KPF 98-415 Filed
Document Filed06/10/20 Page 14
06/03/20 Page 19 of
of 26
31

loan was critical to the client’s business. As a result of Plaintiff Quinn’s work on behalf of this New

York City, NY client, the client received PPP funding of $274,090.

50. Based on the SBA Regulations, Plaintiff Quinn understood that he was not allowed to

charge clients a fee relating to the application process. The agents were only allowed to receive

compensation from the agents’ share of the estimated $20 billion in fees that the Federal Government

paid the Lenders for originating the PPP loans.

51. For his client., Plaintiff Quinn had the primary role in calculating the payroll information

needed for the application, and providing the client’s accounting information, advice, documentation in

support of the PPP loan application. Mr. Quinn personally assisted his client and, due to his twenty-year

experience as a financial advisor and transactional treasurer assisting middle market companies in

acquiring financing, he prepared the application and financing package in such a way to allow Signature

Bank to easily verify the necessary company financial data, thereby expediting the client’s loan.

Plaintiff Quinn also signed the clients’ PPP loan applications as the “authorized representative” of the

client and indicated “Financial Advisor/CPA” on the title line. Additionally, the financial packages

submitted with the client’s PPP loan application to Signature Bank was on Plaintiff’s letterhead.

Plaintiff Quinn also submitted an agency letter with his client’s application submitted to Signature Bank.

52. Plaintiff Quinn will also have ongoing responsibility for advising his client on the

forgiveness of the PPP loan.

53. Pursuant to PPP regulations, Defendants would be entitled to receive $13,704.50 from the

SBA in origination fees on Plaintiff’s client’s PPP loan of, of which one-fifth (i.e., one percent of the

total loan) would have to be paid to Plaintiff Quinn for his work as an agent on the PPP loan

applications. Thus, Plaintiff Quinn was –and remains—owed $2,740.90 for his work.

-13-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case
Case MDL No. 2950 Document
1:20-cv-04144-KPF 98-415 Filed
Document Filed06/10/20 Page 15
06/03/20 Page 20 of
of 26
31

54. Plaintiff Mr. Quinn was thrilled that his clients received their loans from the SBA.

Thereafter, he demanded payment of his agency fees from Defendants because SBA regulations

prohibited Plaintiff from collecting from his clients.

55. Accordingly, Plaintiff Mr. Quinn reached out to Lucy Mazany, Senior Vice President—

Group Director at Signature Bank about how to obtain his agent fee. Mr. Quinn received an email

response from Ms. Mazany, relaying a response from Defendants’ legal counsel that Signature:

56. Thus, Defendants have enacted a company-wide policy—and put it in writing from their

legal counsel—that “Signature will not pay fees to any purported borrower agents in connection with the

PPP loan” and therefore he is entitled to nothing and will receive nothing.

57. To date, Plaintiff Quinn has not received a penny for his substantial work on his clients’

PPP loan applications. And if it is up to Defendants, he never will. All of the potential routes for

payment –his clients, Defendants, PPP funds, SBA—have been closed off.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

58. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated as a

nationwide Class, defined as follows:

All persons and businesses who served as an agent in relation to, and provided
assistance to a client in relation to, the preparation and/or submission of a client’s
PPP loan application to Signature Bank which resulted in a loan being funded
under the PPP. Plaintiff further brings this action on behalf of a subclass of
individuals defined as follows:

-14-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case
Case MDL No. 2950 Document
1:20-cv-04144-KPF 98-415 Filed
Document Filed06/10/20 Page 16
06/03/20 Page 21 of
of 26
31

New York Subclass. All persons and businesses in New York who served as an
agent in relation to, and provided assistance to a client in relation to, the
preparation and/or submission of a client’s PPP loan application to Signature
Bank which resulted in a loan being funded under the PPP.

59. Excluded from this Class and Subclass (hereinafter “the Class” unless otherwise

indicated) are: (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their families; (2)

Defendants, Defendants’ subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which

Defendants or its parents have a controlling interest and its current or former employees, officers and

directors; (3) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the Class; (4)

persons whose claims in this matter have been finally adjudicated on the merits of otherwise released;

(5) Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendants’ counsel; and (6) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns

of any such excluded persons.

60. 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 new facts obtained during discovery.

61. Numerosity: The Class is composed of hundreds of Agents (“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.

62. Commonality and Predominance: 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. Whether Defendants’ conduct violates the CARES Act and/or its implementing

regulations;

b. Whether Defendants are required to compensate Plaintiff out of the origination fees

obtained from SBA through the PPP;

-15-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case
Case MDL No. 2950 Document
1:20-cv-04144-KPF 98-415 Filed
Document Filed06/10/20 Page 17
06/03/20 Page 22 of
of 26
31

c. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to compensation by Defendants for his work assisting in his

client’s PPP loan application;

d. Whether Defendants’ conduct was willful and knowing;

e. Whether Defendants submission of completed Form 2484 constituted an agreement;

f. Whether Defendants breached that agreement;

g. Whether Defendants’ conduct was pursuant to a company-wide policy or policies;

h. Whether Defendants’ conduct violates Gen. Bus. Law § 349(a); and

i. Whether Defendants’ conduct constitutes unjust enrichment.

63. Superiority: This case is also appropriate for class certification because class

proceedings are superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this

controversy given that joinder of all parties is impracticable. The damages suffered by the individual

members of the Class will likely be relatively small, especially given the burden and expense of

individual prosecution of the complex litigation necessitated by Defendants’ actions. Thus, it would be

difficult and not economical for the individual members of the Class to obtain effective relief from

Defendants’ misconduct. Even if members of the Class could sustain such individual litigation, it would

still not be preferable to a class action, because individual litigation would increase the delay and

expense to all parties due to the complex legal and factual controversies presented in this Compliant. By

contrast, a class action presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the benefits of single

adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court. Economies of time,

effort and expense will be fostered and uniformity of decisions ensured.

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

Class Members, in that Plaintiff and members of the Class sustained damages arising out of Defendants’

uniform wrongful conduct.

-16-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case
Case MDL No. 2950 Document
1:20-cv-04144-KPF 98-415 Filed
Document Filed06/10/20 Page 18
06/03/20 Page 23 of
of 26
31

65. Adequacy: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the

Class and has retained counsel with substantial experience in litigating complex cases, including

consumer fraud and class actions. Plaintiff’s claims are representative of the claims of the other

members of the Class. That is, Plaintiff and members of the Class sustained damages as a result of

Defendants’ uniform conduct. Plaintiff also has no interests antagonistic to those of the Class, and

Defendants have no defenses unique to Plaintiff. Both Plaintiff and his 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.

66. 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 electronic mail and mailing address. From this information, the existence of the

Class Members (i.e., borrowers’ Agents) can be determined, and thereafter, a notice of this action can be

disseminated in accordance with due process requirements.

67. Defendants have acted, and refused to act, on grounds generally applicable to the Class,

thereby making appropriate final equitable relief with respect to the Class as a whole.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I – DECLARATORY RELIEF

68. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each preceding and succeeding paragraph as though

fully set forth at length herein.

69. Plaintiff and the Class represent individuals who are “agents” as defined by the SBA

regulations for the PPP.

-17-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case
Case MDL No. 2950 Document
1:20-cv-04144-KPF 98-415 Filed
Document Filed06/10/20 Page 19
06/03/20 Page 24 of
of 26
31

70. Plaintiff and the putative Class have assisted clients with the process of preparing

applications, and applying for, PPP loan funds. Defendants, despite the clear command of the SBA’s

PPP regulations, have refused to make these payments. An actual controversy has arisen between

Plaintiff and the Class, on one hand, and Defendants on the other, wherein Defendants deny by their

refusal to pay that they are obligated to pay Plaintiff’s and the Class’s “agent” fees pursuant to PPP

regulations.

71. Plaintiff and the Class seek a declaration, in accordance with SBA regulations and

pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, that Defendants are obligated to set aside

money to pay, and pay third-party agents –within the SBA-approved limits—for the work performed on

behalf of a client in relation to the preparation and/or submission of a PPP loan application that resulted

in a funded PPP loan.

COUNT II – BREACH OF CONTRACT, THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY

72. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each preceding and succeeding paragraph as though

fully set forth at length herein.

73. Based on information and belief, Defendants entered into an agreement with the SBA in

connection with the loans funded in the PPP.

74. The agreements required that Defendants would adhere to all PPP rules and regulations

and incorporate these requirements by reference. Defendants and the SBA understood that agents

involved in the preparation and submission of PPP loan applications would need to be compensated.

75. The SBA’s PPP regulations specifically require that PPP lenders pay the fees of any

“agent” that assists with the PPP loan application process, within limits.

-18-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case
Case MDL No. 2950 Document
1:20-cv-04144-KPF 98-415 Filed
Document Filed06/10/20 Page 20
06/03/20 Page 25 of
of 26
31

76. Defendants understood that Plaintiff and the Class were intended beneficiaries in this

agreement. Nevertheless, Defendants have refused to live up to their end of the bargain, and have

uniformly refused to pay agent fees to Plaintiff and the Class.

77. By refusing to pay agent fees in accordance with SBA regulations, Defendants are

violating the terms of their agreement, thereby damaging Plaintiff and the Class. Plaintiff and the Class

thus ask this Court to award them damages sufficient to make them whole, and compensate them for

work they did in preparing clients’ PPP loan application for loans that were funded, consequential

damages, and all other damages available at law.

COUNT III – VIOLATIONS OF NEW YORK GBL § 349

78. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each preceding and succeeding paragraph as though

fully set forth at length herein.

79. Plaintiff and the Class are “persons” within the meaning of Gen. Bus. Law § 349(h).

80. Gen. Bus. Law § 349(a) states: “Deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any

business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state are hereby declared

unlawful.”

81. As alleged herein, Defendants engaged in deceptive acts and practices in the form of

misrepresentations on their website, that “[i]f an agent assists the borrower, the lender will compensate

the agent out of the fee it receives from the SBA, at a rate of 0.25%-1% of the loan amount, depending

on its size.” 13 However, upon request of payment by Plaintiff and the members of the Class, Signature

Bank expressed its system-wide refusal to pay any agent fees owed as a result of agents’ work in

assisting clients in obtaining their PPP loans. Such misrepresentations and omissions during the conduct

of business in and from New York violates Gen. Bus. Law § 349(a).

13
J.P. Morgan Private Bank, Small Business Owners: CARES Act FAQ (May 14, 2020),
https://privatebank.jpmorgan.com/gl/en/insights/planning/small-business-owners-cares-act-faq (last visited May 26, 2020).

-19-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case
Case MDL No. 2950 Document
1:20-cv-04144-KPF 98-415 Filed
Document Filed06/10/20 Page 21
06/03/20 Page 26 of
of 26
31

82. Defendants knew or should have known that their acts, practices, statements, policies,

correspondence and representations, as discussed above, were false and likely to deceive and mislead

Plaintiff and the Class members.

83. Plaintiff and the Class members have been injured as a result of Defendants’ violations of

Gen. Bus. Law § 349(a), as they have been deprived to agent fees to which they are entitled.

84. Defendants’ deceptive and misleading acts and practices have directly, foreseeably, and

proximately caused damages and injury to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class and has had a

broader impact on consumers and the public at large. The agency fees to which Plaintiff and the Class

are entitled are paid directly from the income taxes of New Yorkers, and the public at large. Thus, the

refusal of Signature Bank to pay agent fees for their assistance in obtaining PPP loans in accordance

with SBA regulations for their clients during an economic crisis is a matter of public interest of tax-

payers. Specifically, the public had an expectation that the PPP funds were allocated for the assistance of

struggling small businesses, including Plaintiff and the Class, but instead, Signature Bank has been

unjustly enriched at the expense of agents by Signature Bank’s failure to pay the agents their mandated

agent fees.

85. Thus, Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to pursue claims against Defendants pursuant to

Gen. Bus. Law § 349 (h) to redress Defendants’ violations of Gen. Bus. Law § 349(a).

86. Plaintiff and the Class thus ask this Court to award them equitable relief, restitution, civil

penalties, punitive damages, attorney fees, consequential damages, and all other damages available at

law.

COUNT IV – UNJUST ENRICHMENT

87. Plaintiff incorporate by reference each preceding and succeeding paragraph as though

fully set forth at length herein.

-20-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case
Case MDL No. 2950 Document
1:20-cv-04144-KPF 98-415 Filed
Document Filed06/10/20 Page 22
06/03/20 Page 27 of
of 26
31

88. Unjust enrichment, or restitution, may be alleged where a Defendant unjustly obtains and

retains a benefit to the Plaintiff’s detriment, where such retention violates fundamental principles of

equity, justice, and good conscience.

89. Here, Defendants have obtained millions of dollars in benefits in the form of PPP loan

origination fees. A portion of those fees were to be paid to agents, like and including Plaintiff, who

assisted in their clients’ PPP loan applications. But Defendants are refusing to pay those fees, in

contravention of PPP regulations.

90. Principles of justice, equity, and good conscience demand that Defendants not be allowed

to retain these agent fees. Defendants have fallen short in their duties as lenders, and during a crisis no

less. As a result, Plaintiff and the putative Class have been unable to obtain the agent fees due to them.

91. Accordingly, Defendants must disgorge the portion of any and all PPP origination fees

that they have retained to the extent they are due to Plaintiff and the putative Class in their capacities as

agents.

COUNT V – CONVERSION

92. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each preceding and succeeding paragraph as though

fully set forth at length herein.

93. Under the SBA regulations, Plaintiff and the Class, as PPP agents, have a right to agent

fees that must be paid from the amount of lender fees provided to Defendants for processing the funded

PPP loan applications of Plaintiff’s client and the Class’s clients.

94. The SBA regulations state that “[a]gent fees will be paid out of lender fees” and provide

guidelines on the amount of agent fees that should be paid to the PPP agent, based upon the size of the

PPP loan.

-21-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case
Case MDL No. 2950 Document
1:20-cv-04144-KPF 98-415 Filed
Document Filed06/10/20 Page 23
06/03/20 Page 28 of
of 26
31

95. Additionally, the SBA regulations require that lenders, not loan recipients, pay the agent

fees. The SBA regulations unequivocally state that “[a]gents may not collect fees from the applicant.”

96. Plaintiff and the Class assisted clients with applying for PPP loans, including gathering

and curating information necessary for completing PPP loan applications that were subsequently funded.

Due to Plaintiff’s and the Class’s efforts, their clients were awarded PPP loans, through applications

made with Defendants. As such, Plaintiff has a right to immediate possession of the agent fees.

97. Although Plaintiff is entitled to agent fees under the SBA regulations, Defendants have

refused to provide those fees to Plaintiff and the class, thus keeping the agent fees that were paid to it for

purposes of being passed on to the agents. By withholding these fees, Defendants have maintained

wrongful control over Plaintiff’s property inconsistent with Plaintiff’s entitlements under the SBA

regulations.

98. Defendants committed civil conversion by retaining monies owed to Plaintiff and Class

members.

99. Plaintiff and the Class have been injured as a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’

misconduct. Plaintiff, as such, seek recovery from Defendants in the amount of the owed agent fees,

and all other relief afforded under the law.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

100. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues to the fullest extent permitted under

applicable law

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff James Quinn, individually and on behalf of the Class, respectfully

pray for the following relief:

(a) An order certifying the Class as defined above, appointing Plaintiff as the

-22-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case
Case MDL No. 2950 Document
1:20-cv-04144-KPF 98-415 Filed
Document Filed06/10/20 Page 24
06/03/20 Page 29 of
of 26
31

representative of the Class, and appointing their counsel as Class Counsel;

(b) An order declaring that Defendants’ actions, as set out above, constitute

unjust enrichment, conversion, breach of contract on behalf of third-party beneficiary, and violate Gen.

Bus. Law § 349(a), and violate the SBA’s PPP regulations;

and punitive damages available under the law and caused by Defendants’ conduct, including without

limitation, actual damages for past, present and future expenses caused by Defendants’ misconduct, lost

time and interest, and all other damages suffered, including any damages likely to be incurred by Plaintiff

and the Class;

(d) An award of reasonable litigation expenses and attorneys’ fees;

(e) An award of pre- and post-judgment interest, to the extent allowable;

(f) The entry of an injunction and/or declaratory relief as necessary to protect the interests

of the Plaintiff and the Class; and

(g) Such other further relief that the Court deems reasonable and just.

Dated: June 2, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP

By: /s/ Elaine S. Kusel
Elaine S. Kusel
Michele M. Vercoski
Richard D. McCune
Tuan Q. Nguyen
MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 550
Irvine, California 92612
Telephone: (909) 557-1250
Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
Email: esk@mccunewright.com
mmv@mccunewright.com
rdm@mccunewright.com
tqn@mccunewright.com

-23-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case
Case MDL No. 2950 Document
1:20-cv-04144-KPF 98-415 Filed
Document Filed06/10/20 Page 25
06/03/20 Page 30 of
of 26
31

Attorney for Plaintiff and Putative Class

-24-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case
Case MDL No. 2950 Document
1:20-cv-04144-KPF 98-415 Filed
Document Filed06/10/20 Page 26
06/03/20 Page 31 of
of 26
31

JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the putative Class, demands a trial by jury on all issues so
triable.
MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP

Attorney for Plaintiff and Putative Class

-25-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.jpml.1161172.98.4.pdf
Size: 343,646 bytes
SHA-256: f2b22ce2028a08a7962081d04b7b5e9eaf4d492bf6a1e4458fde4c02eec02c86
Our copy: gov.uscourts.jpml.1161172.98.4.pdf
Original: No public link identified.

Exhibit B — Agent Fee Litigation (Dkt. 98.4)

Summary

Full text

File and source

Related records