Case docket
Continental Real Estate Companies v. Small Business Administration — SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals, No. PPP-5457717009
Continental Real Estate Companies v. Small Business Administration — 2 court filings in the archive from U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA), filed between March 21, 2023 and April 14, 2023.
Case facts
| Court | U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) |
|---|---|
| Filings | 2 public filings |
| Filed | 2023-03-21 – 2023-04-14 |
| Original PDFs | 1 of 2 |
Case summary
This page holds two decisions of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals on Paycheck Protection Program loan no. 5457717009, filed as exhibits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, No. 2:23-cv-01921-SDM-KAJ. Continental Real Estate applied on April 17, 2020 for a PPP loan of $2,922,700.00 through The Huntington National Bank, which approved and disbursed it in full on April 23, 2020, and on September 16, 2021 applied for forgiveness of $2,872,765.70. On December 10, 2022 the SBA issued a final loan review decision finding the borrower ineligible as an ineligible passive entity. OHA denied the appeal on March 21, 2023 and denied a petition for reconsideration on April 14, 2023.
Case at a glance
| Parties | Appellant and petitioner: Continental Real Estate, represented by Katherine Dodson. Respondent: U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of General Counsel. The lender is The Huntington National Bank |
|---|---|
| Court and docket | U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Hearings and Appeals, Decision Nos. PPP-5457717009 and PFR-5457717009, on PPP Loan No. 5457717009, under 13 C.F.R. part 134 subpart L; the documents are exhibits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, No. 2:23-cv-01921-SDM-KAJ, on June 13, 2023 |
| Program | Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), added to the SBA's section 7(a) loan portfolio by section 1102 of the CARES Act, Pub. L. 116-136, and codified at 15 U.S.C. § 636(a)(36); the decision records that Congress first authorized $349 billion in loans |
| Claims | On appeal, that the Final SBA Loan Review Decision is clearly erroneous and that OHA should reverse it and find the appellant eligible for PPP loan forgiveness. On reconsideration, that the decision rested on a clear error of fact, that Continental is not a passive business owned by a developer or landlord, and of law, that developers are not per se passive businesses ineligible for SBA loans |
| Disposition or status | Denied and affirmed. OHA denied the appeal and affirmed the final SBA loan review decision on March 21, 2023, and denied the petition for reconsideration on April 14, 2023 under the 13 C.F.R. § 134.1211(c)(1) standard requiring a clear showing of an error of fact or law material to the decision. The page carries no district court ruling |
| Status checked | 2026-09-23 · against DOJ press releases through 2026-09-22; court docket not yet read |
What did the SBA decide?
That the borrower was ineligible for the PPP loan received. The final loan review decision of December 10, 2022 states that after review of the documentation the SBA concludes the borrower is organised as an ineligible passive entity, citing open-source material describing Continental Real Estate as a nationwide developer and builder of commercial real estate projects and 2019 financial statements reporting development fees, professional fees and gain from sale of affiliated interests.
What is the procedural history?
The SBA notified the borrower through its lender on November 1, 2021 that it was reviewing the loan and on January 21, 2022 that it was potentially recommending full denial based on affiliation rules. It issued a final decision on affiliation grounds on September 12, 2022, withdrew it on November 5, 2022, and moved to dismiss the appeal; OHA dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on November 15, 2022 and dismissed a petition for reconsideration on December 12, 2022. The new decision of December 10, 2022 no longer relied on affiliation.
What did the reconsideration decision hold?
It denied the petition. The decision records the petitioner's argument that the denial rested on a clear error of fact and law and the SBA's position that it is sufficient that the appellant does not use or occupy the assets it acquires or improves to render it passive and ineligible, and applies the standard that a petition must rest on a manifest error of law or mistake of fact leaving the administrative judge with a definite and firm conviction that key findings were mistaken.
Summary written from the documents on this page; every sentence is sourced.
Filings
2 public filings from this case, in filing-date order.
Court, dates and docket numbers are as recorded on the filings.