Exhibit 41 — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 567-12, S.D. Cal. No. 3:21-md-02992)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California · No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB · Doc. 567-12 · 2025-10-17 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

HX 41
FILED 
PROVISIONALLY 
UNDER SEAL WITH 
REDACTIONS 
PURSUANT TO 
STIPULATED 
PROTECTIVE ORDER
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34243 
Page 1 of 76

 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
SAN DIEGO DIVISION 
 
 
In re Bank of America California 
Unemployment Benefits Litigation, 
 
 
This Document Relates to All Actions 
 
 
 
Case No. 3-21-md-02992-GPC-MSB 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EXPERT REPORT OF  
GREG J. REGAN, CPA/CFF, CFE 
 
March 4, 2025 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34244 
Page 2 of 76

Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CPA/CFF, CFE 
Page | i 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
PAGE 
I. 
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 
A. 
Summary of Plaintiffs’ Allegations ........................................................................ 1 
B. 
Nature of My Assignment ....................................................................................... 3 
C. 
Summary of Opinions ............................................................................................. 5 
1. 
Claim Denial Class: .................................................................................... 6 
2. 
Credit Rescission Class: .............................................................................. 7 
3. 
Account Freeze Class:................................................................................. 8 
4. 
Customer Service Class: ............................................................................. 8 
5. 
EMV Chip Class, ........................................................................................ 9 
D. 
Qualifications ........................................................................................................ 10 
II. 
CLAIM DENIAL CLASS ................................................................................................ 12 
A. 
Identification of Claim Denial Class Members .................................................... 12 
B. 
Calculations of Claim Denial Class Damages ...................................................... 15 
1. 
Principal Amount of Actual Damages ...................................................... 15 
2. 
Consequential Damages ............................................................................ 16 
3. 
EFTA Treble Damages ............................................................................. 28 
4. 
EFTA Statutory Damages ......................................................................... 28 
5. 
Disgorgement of Profits ............................................................................ 28 
III. 
CREDIT RECISSION CLASS ......................................................................................... 30 
A. 
Identification of Credit Recission Class Members ............................................... 30 
B. 
Calculations of Credit Recission Class Damages ................................................. 31 
1. 
Principal Amount of Actual Damages ...................................................... 31 
2. 
Consequential Damages ............................................................................ 32 
3. 
EFTA Treble Damages ............................................................................. 33 
4. 
EFTA Statutory Damages ......................................................................... 33 
5. 
Disgorgement of Profits ............................................................................ 33 
IV. 
ACCOUNT FREEZE CLASS .......................................................................................... 34 
A. 
Identification of Account Freeze Class Members ................................................. 34 
B. 
Calculations of Account Freeze Class Damages .................................................. 36 
1. 
Principal Amount of Actual Damages ...................................................... 36 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34245 
Page 3 of 76

Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CPA/CFF, CFE  
Page | ii 
2. 
Consequential Damages ............................................................................ 37 
3. 
Disgorgement of Profits ............................................................................ 39 
V. 
CUSTOMER SERVICE CLASS ...................................................................................... 40 
A. 
Identification of Customer Service Class Members ............................................. 40 
B. 
Calculations of Customer Service Class Damages ............................................... 41 
1. 
Actual Damages ........................................................................................ 41 
2. 
Disgorgement of Profits ............................................................................ 42 
VI. 
EMV CHIP CLASS .......................................................................................................... 43 
A. 
Identification of EMV Chip Class Members ........................................................ 43 
B. 
Calculations of EMV Chip Class Damages .......................................................... 43 
1. 
Actual Damages ........................................................................................ 43 
2. 
CCPA Statutory Damages......................................................................... 44 
3. 
Disgorgement of Profits ............................................................................ 44 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34246 
Page 4 of 76

Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CPA/CFF, CFE  
Page | 1 
I. 
INTRODUCTION 
A. 
Summary of Plaintiffs’ Allegations 
1. 
Class Plaintiffs Kuang Ting Chong, Candace Koole, Lindsay McClure, Azuri 
Moon, Stephanie Moore, Roland Oosthuizen, Vanessa Rivera, Michael Willrich, and Alex Yuan 
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) brought this proposed class action against Defendant Bank of 
America, N.A. (“Bank of America” or “Bank”) on behalf of themselves and all other similarly 
situated individuals whose California unemployment and other public benefits were paid through 
debit cards issued by Bank of America.1 
2. 
The California Employment Development Department (“EDD”) administers 
programs that provide unemployment insurance (“UI”) and state disability insurance (including 
disability insurance and paid family leave) benefits (“EDD benefits”) to Californians.2 In 2010, 
EDD contracted with Bank of America to provide Bank-administered prepaid debit cards (“EDD 
debit cards”) through which individuals entitled to receive EDD benefits could access those 
benefits (“EDD cardholders”).3  
3. 
Plaintiffs allege that, during the Covid-19 pandemic, Bank of America 
implemented policies that deprived Plaintiffs of EDD benefits to which they were lawfully 
entitled, including by implementing an automated Claim Fraud Filter (“CFF”)4 that it used to 
 
1 Third Amended Master Consolidated Complaint (“TAMCC”) 1-2. 
2 Id. ¶¶ 1, 38; see also Emp. Dev. Dep’t (EDD), State of California, About Our Branches, 
https://edd.ca.gov/en/about_edd/about_edd/. 
3 Id. ¶¶ 2, 39; see also Exhibit to the Plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of the Bank (“Dep. 
Ex.” Designee Robert Chestnut (“Chestnut”) 26 at 5. 
4 I understand that, beginning on approximately September 28, 2020, Bank of America had a 
practice of applying its Claim Fraud Filter to unauthorized-transaction claims submitted by EDD 
cardholders, which Plaintiffs allege resulted in the improper denial of the class members’ 
unauthorized transaction claims and other harms. See, e.g., TAMCC ¶ 89. The Claim Fraud Filter 
was applied by the Bank to accounts associated with state unemployment programs. See 
Transcript of the Deposition of the Bank’s Rule 30(b)(6) Designee Jennifer Lennon, dated 
February 23, 2024 (“Lennon Tr.”) at 75:22-76:7. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34247 
Page 5 of 76

Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CPA/CFF, CFE  
Page | 2 
summarily close or deny unauthorized transaction claims made by EDD cardholders,5 to rescind 
permanent credits previously issued to EDD Cardholder accounts,6 and to freeze EDD 
Cardholder accounts cutting off access to the EDD benefits.7 Plaintiffs further allege that the 
Bank failed to maintain adequate levels of customer service needed to handle EDD cardholders’ 
unauthorized transaction claims,8 and that Bank of America failed to take reasonable measures to 
secure their EDD Cardholder accounts by issuing EDD debit cards without industry-standard 
EMV security chips.9  
4. 
Plaintiffs and class members belong to one or more of the following classes, each 
of which is ascertainable from the Bank’s records, as explained herein:10 
 
5 TAMCC ¶¶ 89-91. 
6 Id. ¶ 92 
7 Id. ¶¶ 93-96. 
8 Id. ¶¶ 97-105. 
9 Id. ¶ 69. 
10 Excluded from each Class is any person whom the Bank has determined, pursuant to its 
Remediation Plan with the United States Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), “(i) has 
been disqualified by the state from Program eligibility; (ii) has previously engaged in fraudulent 
Program conduct, such as submission of fraudulent claims or other abuses of the claims process; 
or (iii) has had their card frozen due to legal order processes, as a result of Internal/Vendor fraud 
investigations, or by Global Financial Crimes Compliance.” Dep. Ex. of Bank’s Rule 30(b)(6) 
Designee Jennifer Lennon (“Lennon”) 132 at -102557. The Remediation Plan defines “Program” 
as “the Bank’s Unemployment Benefits Prepaid Card Program.” Id. at -102555. Also excluded 
from each Class is any person whose Claim or Account the Bank closed, in whole or in part, 
because the State of California requested that the Bank close that person’s Claim or Account. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34248 
Page 6 of 76

No. 
Class 
Class Definition 
1 
Claim Denial 
All Bank of America EDD cardholders who notified the Bank that an 
unauthorized transaction had occuned on their Bank of America EDD 
debit card account ("Claim") at an automated teller machine ("A TM"), 
and whose Claim the Bank denied or closed at any time from 
September 28, 2020 through June 8, 2021, based solely on Indicator 1 
of the Bank's CFF. 
2 
Credit 
All Bank of America EDD cardholders who received pe1manent credit from 
Rescission 
the Bank in connection with their Claim, which credit the Bank 
rescinded at any time from September 28, 2020 through June 8, 2021, 
based solely on Indicator 1 of the Bank's CFF. 
3 
Account 
All Bank of America EDD cardholders whose EDD debit card account 
Freeze 
("Account") the Bank froze at any time from September 28, 2020 
through March 18, 2021, based solely on Indicator 1 of the Bank's 
CFF, and whose Account the Bank (i) subsequently unfroze, or (ii) 
subsequently conve1ted from frozen to blocked status on or after March 
18, 2021, and then unblocked. 
4 
Customer 
All members of the Claim Denial Class and/or the Credit Rescission 
Service 
Class who telephoned the Bank's customer se1vice phone number for 
Bank of America EDD cardholders at any time between September 13, 
2020 and November 21, 2020, inclusive, and whose telephone call was 
routed to the Bank's Claims Call Center. 
5 
EMVChip 
All members of the Claim Denial Class and/or the Credit Rescission 
Class whose EDD debit card did not include an EMV chip prior to June 
9, 2021.11 
B. 
Nature of My Assignment 
5. 
My fnm, Hemming Morse, LLC ("HM"), was retained by Plaintiffs' counsel in In 
re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation, Case No. 3-21-md-02992-
GPC-MSB. I have been retained to evaluate appropriate methodologies to measure the impact on 
each Class of the Bank's policies and practices, as alleged by Plaintiffs, of: (1) denying EDD 
cardholders' unauthorized transaction claims without investigation or issuance of provisional 
credit, based on the results of the Bank's "Claim Fraud Filter"; (2) rescinding previously issued 
pe1manent credits on EDD Cardholders' unauthorized transaction claims, based on the Bank's 
11 I understand that the EMV Chip class definition may be modified to exclude EDD cardholders 
who repo1ted at the time of submitting their unauthorized-transaction claim that their card was 
lost, stolen, or never received. In that event, I further understand that such individuals can be 
identified from the Bank's records and excluded from my damages calculations. Consequently, 
their exclusion from the class definition would have no impact on my proposed methodologies 
for calculating damages as described herein. 
Expe1t Report of Greg J. Regan, CP A/CFF, CFE 
Page I 3 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34249 
Page 7 of 76

retroactive application of its Claim Fraud Filter; (3) freezing the accounts of EDD cardholders 
who submitted unauthorized transaction claims, based on the results of the Claim Fraud Filter; 
(4) subjecting EDD cardholders seeking assistance with their unauthorized transaction claims 
during ce1iain time periods to excessively long wait times before their calls were answered; and 
(5) issuing EDD cardholders debit cards that did not include an EMV chip prior to July 2021. 
Specifically, I have been asked to provide a methodology to calculate classwide damages 
available to each of the following five Classes , which I have summarized in the table below and 
described in the related sub-sections of this report: 12 
Class 
Claim 
Damae:es Soue:ht 
Claim Denial 
EFTA13 and Regulation E14 
Actual damages + Statuto1y damages + 
Treble Damages 
Breach of Fiduciaiy Duty 
Actual damages + Disgorgement + 
Punitive damages 
Breach of the Implied 
Actual damages + Disgorgement + 
Covenant of Good Faith 
Punitive damages 
Negligence 
Actual damages + Disgorgement 
UCL 
Restitution 
Credit 
EFTA and Regulation E 
Actual damages + Statuto1y dainages + 
Rescission 
Treble damages 
Due Process 
Actual damages + Punitive damages 
Breach of Fiducia1y Duty 
Actual damages + Disgorgement + 
Punitive damages 
Breach of the Implied 
Actual damages + Disgorgement + 
Covenant of Good Faith 
Punitive damages 
Negligence 
Actual damages + Disgorgement 
UCL 
Restitution 
Account Freeze 
Due Process 
Actual damages + Punitive damages 
Breach of Fiduciaiy Duty 
Actual damages + Disgorgement + 
Punitive damages 
Breach of the Implied 
Actual damages + Disgorgement + 
Covenant of Good Faith 
Punitive damages 
Negligence 
Actual damages + Disgorgement 
UCL 
Restitution 
12 I have not been asked to calculate punitive damages at this time. 
13 Electronic Funds Transfer Act ("EFTA"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1693(a)-(r). 
14 12 C.F.R. pt 1005. I understand that the Bank represented to EDD that it would comply with 
Regulation E requirements and timelines. See Chestnut Dep. Ex. 26 at 199. 
Expe1i Repo1i of Greg J. Regan, CP A/CFF, CFE 
Page 14 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34250 
Page 8 of 76

Class 
Claim 
Damae:es Soue:ht 
Customer 
Breach of the Implied 
Actual damages + Disgorgement + Punitive 
Service 
Covenant of Good Faith 
damages 
Negligence 
Actual damages + Disgorgement 
EMVChip 
CCPA 
Actual damages + Statutory damages 
Breach of Fiduciru.y Duty 
Actual damages + Disgorgement + Punitive 
damages 
Negligence 
Actual damages + Disgorgement 
6. 
My analysis of damages for each proposed claim, and ultimately each proposed 
class, is perfo1med on an independent, standalone basis. I took this approach to allow damages to 
be readily calculated in the event a claim is removed, or damages ru.·e awarded for only one of the 
proposed classes. For this reason, an impacted Cardholder may have more than one claim or may 
belong to more than one class. This does not mean, however, that I propose the same damages 
multiple times for Cardholders who have more than one claim or ru.·e members of more than one 
proposed class. If an awru.·d is made, and depending on the nature of the awru.·d, it may be 
appropriate to disaggregate the damage amounts. This disaggregation is easily undertaken using 
the existing data in my analysis. 
C. 
Summary of Opinions 
7. 
I understand that each of Plaintiffs' class definitions reference "Indicator I" of the 
Bank's Claim Fraud Filter ("CFF"). The Bank applied Indicator 1 to all Claims submitted or 
pending disposition at any time between September 28, 2020 and June 8, 2021 that involved an 
unauthorized ' 
." 15 The Bank has explained 
that Indicator 1 applied to Claims involving, in whole or in pa1t, an unauthorized ATM 
withdrawal (i.e. , 
16 Plaintiffs allege that the Bank denied 
15 Bank of America's Responses and Objections to PlaintiffYick's Fomth Set of Intenogatories 
("4th Rogs"), No. 28. 
16 See Transcript of the Deposition of Bank's Rule 30(b)(6) Designee Michael Letson, ("Letson 
Tr.") at 92:15-94:5 
Expe1t Report of Greg J. Regan, CP A/CFF, CFE 
Page I 5 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34251 
Page 9 of 76

Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CPA/CFF, CFE  
Page | 6 
Claims, rescinded permanent credits, and froze EDD cardholder accounts based solely on its 
application of Indicator 1.17 
8. 
The paragraphs below summarize my present opinions for each class. Each of 
these opinions is described in further detail in a related section below:18 
1. 
Claim Denial Class: 
9. 
Actual damages may be calculated on a classwide basis as follows. The principal 
amount of damages equals the amount of the Plaintiffs’ and class members’ claims that the Bank 
denied based solely on Indicator 1 of its CFF, which data is available in Bank records that have 
been produced to Plaintiffs in this litigation. Consequential damages from loss of access to this 
principal amount resulting from the Bank’s denial of claims based solely on CFF Indicator 1 may 
be calculated by applying a compound interest rate to the principal amounts (i.e., the claim 
amounts). This compound interest rate reflects the time value of money for the affected 
population of cardholders or comparable measure of the economic loss to class members 
resulting from their inability to access their UI benefits, based on the total length of time the 
class members were denied access to those funds, which data is also available in Bank records 
that have been produced to Plaintiffs in this litigation. A compound interest rate is a standard 
way of calculating the financial impact resulting from denial of access to funds. This 
methodology to calculate consequential damages is conservative because it excludes other 
obvious financial harms experienced by EDD Cardholders attributable to the Bank’s denial of 
their claims. For instance, due to the unexpected unavailability of their funds, EDD cardholders 
would likely have incurred late or overdraft fees. My calculations are explained in further detail 
in §§ II-IV below. 
 
 Dep. Ex. of Designee William M. Martin 
(“Martin”) 61 at -90640 (“
).”). 
17 TAMCC ¶¶ 89-96. 
18 For purposes of my analysis, I assume that Plaintiffs will establish liability based on their 
allegations.  
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34252 
Page 10 of 76

Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CPA/CFF, CFE  
Page | 7 
10. 
Treble damages under EFTA, 15 U.S.C. §1693f(e), can be calculated on a 
classwide basis by simply multiplying each class member’s actual damages by three.  
11. 
Statutory damages under EFTA, 15 U.S.C. §1693m(a)(2)(B), can likewise be 
calculated on a classwide basis in accordance with the statute, which provides for statutory 
damages of up to $500,000 per violation in a class action. The aggregate award of statutory 
damages can be allocated per capita (providing all class members an equal share) or pro rata 
among class members in proportion to the value of their actual damages. 
12. 
Disgorgement can be calculated based on the Bank’s records. Plaintiffs and the 
class seek disgorgement of profits that the Bank earned on the claim amounts that the Bank 
withheld from Plaintiffs and the class based solely on CFF Indicator 1. The disgorged profits can 
be allocated per capita or pro rata among class members in proportion to the value of their actual 
damages. 
2. 
Credit Rescission Class: 
13. 
Actual damages can be calculated on a classwide basis as follows. The principal 
amount of damages equals the amount of the claim credit that the Bank rescinded based solely on 
Indicator 1 of its Claim Fraud Filter, which data is available in Bank records that have been 
produced to Plaintiffs in this litigation. Consequential damages can be calculated using the 
methodology described above with respect to the Claim Denial class. 
14. 
Treble damages under EFTA, 15 U.S.C. §1693f(e), can be calculated on a 
classwide basis by simply multiplying each class member’s actual damages by three.  
15. 
Statutory damages under EFTA, 15 U.S.C. §1693m(a)(2)(B), can likewise be 
calculated on a classwide basis in accordance with the statute, which provides for statutory 
damages of up to $500,000 per violation in a class action. The aggregate award of statutory 
damages can be allocated per capita or pro rata among class members in proportion to the value 
of their actual damages. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34253 
Page 11 of 76

Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CPA/CFF, CFE  
Page | 8 
16. 
Disgorgement can be calculated based on the Bank’s records. Plaintiffs and the 
class seek disgorgement of profits that the Bank earned on the rescinded claim credit amounts 
that the Bank withheld from Plaintiffs and the Class based solely on CFF Indicator 1. The 
disgorged profits can be allocated per capita or pro rata among class members in proportion to 
the value of their actual damages. 
3. 
Account Freeze Class:  
17. 
Actual damages can be calculated on a classwide basis as follows. The principal 
amount of damages equals the amount of funds in Plaintiffs’ and class members’ accounts to 
which they were denied access when the Bank froze their accounts based solely on Indicator 1 of 
its Claim Fraud Filter, which data is available in Bank records that have been produced to 
Plaintiffs in this litigation. Consequential damages can be calculated using the methodology 
described above with respect to the Claim Denial class.  
18. 
Disgorgement can be calculated based on the Bank’s records. Plaintiffs and the 
class seek disgorgement of profits that the Bank earned on the amounts frozen in their accounts 
that the Bank withheld from Plaintiffs and the class based solely on CFF Indicator 1. The 
disgorged profits can be allocated per capita or pro rata among class members in proportion to 
the value of their actual damages. 
4. 
Customer Service Class: 
19. 
Actual damages can be calculated on a classwide basis as follows. An appropriate 
measure of damages for this class is compensation for the value of Plaintiffs’ and class members’ 
lost time spent on hold with the Bank’s Claims call center waiting for their call to be answered 
that was greater than the reasonable wait-on-hold time by industry standards. This calculation 
can be readily accomplished for all class members. Plaintiffs’ call center expert has analyzed the 
Bank’s call center data during the relevant times and has compared the “Average Speed to 
Answer” (“ASA”) of the Bank’s Claims call center against the industry average ASA, yielding 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34254 
Page 12 of 76

Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CPA/CFF, CFE  
Page | 9 
an average excess hold time of approximately 
per call.19 The Bank’s records reflect 
how many times each class member called during the relevant period. These figures can be 
multiplied by the applicable minimum wage—or other reasonable metric—to calculate the total 
value of class members’ lost time. I understand Plaintiffs’ labor economist expert David Levine 
will offer testimony that the applicable California minimum wage is a reasonable conservative 
measure of the value of class members’ lost time spent waiting on hold with the Bank’s Claims 
call center in excess of industry standard wait times. 
20. 
Disgorgement can be calculated based on the Bank’s records. Plaintiffs and the 
class seek disgorgement of profits, in the form of avoided costs, that the Bank earned by 
understaffing its Claims call center, which caused the long wait times that the Customer Service 
class members endured. The disgorged profits can be allocated per capita or pro rata among class 
members in proportion to the value of their lost-time actual damages. 
5. 
EMV Chip Class,  
21. 
Actual damages can be calculated on a classwide basis as follows. The principal 
amount of damages equals the amount of funds that were taken from the class member’s EDD 
debit card account through an unauthorized ATM transaction and/or an unauthorized point-of-
sale transaction, as reflected in the amount of the class member’s claim that the Bank denied 
based solely on Indicator 1 of its Claim Fraud Filter, which data is available in Bank records that 
have been produced to Plaintiffs in this litigation. Consequential damages can be calculated 
using the methodology described above with respect to the Claim Denial class.  
22. 
Statutory damages under the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), Cal. 
Civ. Code §1798.150(a), can be calculated on a classwide basis in accordance with the statute, 
 
19 This amount is the current best estimate. Ultimately, the finder of fact may conclude that a 
different input for the excess hold time applies. In that event, my methodology continues to 
apply, however, a different input for the average excess hold time would be implemented.  
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34255 
Page 13 of 76

Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CPA/CFF, CFE  
Page | 10 
which provides for statutory damages ranging from a minimum of $100 to a maximum of $750 
per violation, or actual damages, whichever is greater. 
23. 
Disgorgement can be calculated based on the Bank’s records. Plaintiffs and the 
class seek disgorgement of profits, in the form of avoided costs, that the Bank earned by not 
including EMV chips in its EDD debit cards prior to July 2021 (an estimated 
per card as of 
January 2020, according to Bank records). The disgorged profits can be allocated among the 
class members on a per capita basis. 
D. 
Qualifications 
24. 
I am a Partner in the Forensic Consulting Services Group of Hemming Morse, 
LLC.20 I have been licensed as a CPA in California continuously since 1998. I am also licensed 
as a CPA in New York. I hold the Certified in Financial Forensics (“CFF”) certification from the 
AICPA, which is the national professional organization for CPAs. I am also a Certified Fraud 
Examiner (“CFE”), which is a certification issued by the Association of Certified Fraud 
Examiners. I obtained my undergraduate degree from Georgetown University and Masters in 
Business Administration with an emphasis in Corporate Finance from the University of San 
Francisco. 
25. 
My work in the accounting profession includes experience as an auditor at Ernst 
& Young LLP, as the Controller of a publicly traded company, and as a consultant. My work as a 
consultant has involved extensive analysis of various forms of economic damages. Through 
these roles, I have gained substantial experience working with complex data systems.  
26. 
I have been retained to perform these types of damages analyses in matters 
involving large companies such as Amazon, Avaya, ASML, Beyond Meat, Cisco, Fitbit, Google, 
Intuit, and PNC Bank. I have also been retained as an expert by numerous governmental entities 
such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
 
20 My expert qualifications, including the testimony I have given, are described in Appendix A 
hereto. 
-
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34256 
Page 14 of 76

Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CPA/CFF, CFE  
Page | 11 
(“CFPB”) and Attorney Generals for numerous states (e.g., California, Colorado, and 
Massachusetts). For example, I was retained by the Colorado Attorney General in its 
investigation of the lending practices of Marlette Funding LLC, a consumer lending company. 
Strategic Financial LLC also retained me to analyze allegations by the CFPB. Additionally, I 
have published numerous peer-reviewed analyses of consumer outcomes in debt settlement 
programs for the American Association for Debt Resolution.  
27. 
The AICPA has 650,000 members. The AICPA delegates policy-setting in areas 
in which CPAs are active to nineteen different executive committees.21 I have served as a 
member of the AICPA’s Forensic & Valuation Services Executive Committee. This nine-
member committee establishes professional standards and guidance for practitioners performing 
consulting services that require the application of forensic accounting or valuation-related 
methodologies. I was the Chair of the AICPA’s Economic Damages Task Force from 2010-2013 
and served as a member of this task force through 2020. I continue to regularly present at the 
AICPA’s national forensic and valuation services conference. In 2012, I received the AICPA’s 
Forensic Services Volunteer of the Year, which is the award given annually to a member that has 
made significant contributions to the advancement of the field of forensic accounting. 
28. 
I am also a member of the California Society of Certified Public Accountants and 
was the Chair of its statewide Forensic Services Section. 
29. 
The AICPA requires its members to comply with its standards. The AICPA has 
determined that the services I am performing in this matter are subject to its Statement on 
Standards for Forensic Services. These standards require me, among other things, to operate with 
integrity, and to be impartial, intellectually honest, and free of conflicts of interest. 
30. 
My hourly rate is $650 per hour. My compensation is not dependent on the 
calculations I have made, the opinions I express, or the outcome of this matter. A list of the 
 
21 See AICPA & CIMA, AICPA Board of Directors and Volunteer Committees, www.aicpa-
cima.com/resources/landing/aicpa-governance-and-senior-and-executive-committees. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34257 
Page 15 of 76

Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CPA/CFF, CFE  
Page | 12 
sources I considered in preparing this report, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 
26(a)(2)(B)(ii), may be found in Appendix B to this report, as well as the footnotes herein. 
These sources include documents produced by the Bank, documents that are publicly available 
including documents published by the Bank, testimony, and written discovery.22  
31. 
This report contains proprietary information designated by the Bank as 
“CONFIDENTIAL” and “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under a 
Stipulated Protective Order entered in the United States District Court for the Northern District 
of California and/or that the Court has ordered sealed. Accordingly, no part of this report or its 
contents may be published without adherence to the applicable legal standards governing such 
publications.  
II. 
CLAIM DENIAL CLASS 
A. 
Identification of Claim Denial Class Members 
32. 
As described in ¶ 4 above, the Claim Denial class consists of all EDD cardholders 
who gave the Bank notice that an unauthorized transaction had occurred on their EDD Debit 
Card Account (“Claim”) and whose Claim the Bank closed or denied at any time between 
September 28, 2020 and June 8, 2021 based on the Bank’s application of its CFF because the 
Claim triggered Indicator 1 of the Bank’s CFF and no other CFF Indicators. Excluded from the 
class is any person whom the Bank has determined, pursuant to its Remediation Plan under the 
CFPB Consent Order, “(i) has been disqualified by the state from Program eligibility; (ii) has 
previously engaged in fraudulent Program conduct, such as submission of fraudulent claims or 
 
22 In addition, other evidence may be produced that could be relevant to my conclusions, including 
the testimony and reports of other witnesses. Accordingly, I reserve the right to amend my report 
and supplement my opinions after considering such evidence, if necessary. For purposes of clarity, 
the Bank has produced supplemental and/or revised information in response to interrogatory 
requests. The references to the exhibits to the Bank’s interrogatory responses herein should be 
understood to reference the most recent version of that exhibit, as of the date of this report, unless 
otherwise noted. To the extent the Bank supplements its discovery responses before trial with 
updated class member data, damages can be re-calculated based on the updated data using the 
same methodologies described herein. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34258 
Page 16 of 76

Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CPA/CFF, CFE  
Page | 13 
other abuses of the claims process; or (iii) has had their card frozen due to legal order processes, 
as a result of Internal/Vendor fraud investigations, or by Global Financial Crimes Compliance” 
(collectively, “Excluded Cardholders”).23 
 
24 I used the Bank’s own data to exclude thousands 
of claims for these reasons, and under the methodologies I propose, any additional claims that 
are subject to these exclusions would similarly be excluded. 
33. 
The members of this Class are ascertainable from the Bank’s records. 
Specifically, Bank of America produced data from its claims system of record Wadworth, The 
W, which contains transactional data received from Visa, and data from Global Information 
Security (“GIS”), that identifies all EDD cardholders whose claims satisfied (“triggered,” in the 
Bank’s words) Indicator 1, 2, or 3 of the CFF, and which the Bank then denied based on 
application of the Claim Fraud Filter, 
 
 
.25  
34. 
 
26 
 
 
23 Lennon Dep. Ex. 132 at -102557. 
24 Bank of America’s First Set of Responses and Objections to Plaintiff Yick’s Seventh Set of 
Interrogatories (“7th Rogs”), No. 46 and Exhibit 16 thereto (as of April 19, 2024). In addition to 
those identified in Exhibit 16, the Bank identified 
 
, who do not appear in Exhibit 
16. For purposes of identifying class members and calculating class damages, I have also treated 
 as Excluded Cardholders. 
25 Bank of America’s Responses and Objections to Plaintiff Yick’s Third Set of Interrogatories 
(“3rd Rogs”), No. 21; see also Lennon Tr. at 30:19-31:8, 208:24-209:14, 210:14-212:7. 
26 Lennon Tr. at 168:17-169:5. 
-
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34259 
Page 17 of 76

- -:27 
35. 
36. 
In total, the Banlc identified approximately- unique CardAliasIDs whose 
claims "triggered" Indicator 1 and did not trigger any other Indicator.29 
27 3rd Rogs, Revised Exhibit 6, Paii 1 
28 1st Rogs, Revised Exhibit 1. 
29 3rd Rogs, Revised Exhibit 6, Pa1i 1. 
Expe1i Repo1i of Greg J. Regan, CP A/CFF, CFE 
Page I 14 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34260 
Page 18 of 76

Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CPA/CFF, CFE  
Page | 15 
.30 
 
 
.31  
37. 
 
 
 
.32 Ultimately, the EDD Cardholder 
claims relevant to the Claim Denial class damages calculations are identified in Schedule 1.33  
B. 
Calculations of Claim Denial Class Damages 
1. 
Principal Amount of Actual Damages 
38. 
The principal amount of actual damages equals the amount of each class 
member’s claim(s) that the Bank denied based solely on Indicator 1 of its Claim Fraud Filter. 
The actual amount of each such denied claim for each cardholder is readily available using data 
produced by the Bank. 
39. 
Based on the Bank’s records produced to Plaintiffs as of the date of this Report, 
the total dollar value of the Claim Denial class’s claims that the Bank denied based solely on 
 
30 For identification of the Credit Recission class, see infra ¶ 1-2. There are approximately 
 
CardAliasIDs with multiple claims each reflecting different circumstances such that the 
CardAliasID met the criteria for inclusion in both the Claim Denial class and the Credit 
Recission class. In these cases, the CardAliasID is included in each class only to the extent of 
underlying relevant claim(s) (i.e., there is no double-counting of claims).  
31 See 7th Rogs, No. 46 and Exhibit 16 thereto. 
32 I understand discovery is ongoing and the identification of the members of this Class will be 
adjusted as the Bank continues to implement the Remediation Plan. As of the date of this report, 
at most 
Individual Plaintiffs (see TAMCC ¶¶ 286-524) are members of at least one class.  
33 Of this total, there are approximately 
 cardholders for which there is no claim data in 
Revised Exhibit 1 (i.e., the Bank does not appear to have produced sufficient data to calculate 
damages for these cardholders). Additionally, if printed, Schedule 1 would exceed 1,000 pages. 
Accordingly, I have attached the first 9 printed pages of Schedule 1 to this report and provided a 
native copy of the actual schedule to Plaintiffs’ Counsel, which I understand they will provide to 
the Bank’s counsel and the Court upon request. 
-
• 
-
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34261 
Page 19 of 76

Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CPA/CFF, CFE  
Page | 16 
Indicator 1 of the CFF, and thus the total principal amount of actual damages for this class, is 
approximately 
.  
2. 
Consequential Damages 
a) 
The Cost of the Inability to Access Funds 
40. 
An EDD cardholder who experienced and reported an unauthorized transaction on 
their EDD debit card account, which the Bank then wrongfully failed to timely credit, was 
deprived of the use of their funds. This deprival is consistent with the testimony of the Bank’s 
representative, Mr. Robert Chestnut. Specifically, absent the claim denial, Mr. Chestnut testified 
that
.”34 
 
.35  
41. 
The consumer’s withdrawal of their EDD funds is also consistent with the nature 
of those funds, which were designed to replace only approximately 50% of the recipient’s wages 
prior to unemployment.36 Accordingly, consumers receiving unemployment insurance benefits 
 
34 Chestnut Tr. at 63:5-14 
 
 
 
 
 
(emphasis added). 
35 Chestnut Tr. at 63:24-64:4 
 
 
 
 
. Id. at 61:9-19. 
36 Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), State of California and Gabriel Petek, Improving 
California’s Unemployment Insurance Program, LAO, Aug. 2022, 
https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2022/4615/Improving-CA-UI-Program-080822.pdf, 6. See also Emp. 
Dev. Dep’t (EDD), State of California, For Your Benefit: California’s Programs for the 
Unemployed, https://edd.ca.gov/siteassets/files/pdf_pub_ctr/de2320.pdf, 4-5, 17-19; Irena 
Asmundson and Mark Duggan, “Overdue: Why California needs to reform unemployment 
insurance funding,” Stanford Institute for Economic Research Policy (SIEPR), Mar. 2022, 
https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/overdue-why-california-needs-reform-
unemployment-insurance-funding. For example, if an individual received a quarterly wage while 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34262 
Page 20 of 76

Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CPA/CFF, CFE  
Page | 17 
from EDD were under increased financial stress prior to being impacted by the Bank’s claim 
denials.37 This circumstance is consistent with the fact that many Americans live paycheck-to-
paycheck.38 It is also consistent with a U.S. Department of Labor study performed on 
unemployment insurance recipients in California, which found that 97% of recipients reported 
those benefits were important to meeting their current financial obligations.39 Similarly, the 
CFPB concluded that such benefits were particularly important during the Covid-19 pandemic—
the time period relevant to the measurement of damages in this instance:  
Unemployment insurance was crucial in keeping unemployed consumers from 
suffering financially.40  
42. 
The loss of this replacement income was particularly impactful because 
consumers who lost their jobs during the pandemic and received unemployment insurance tended 
to earn less than the median wage (i.e., were less likely to have available savings to bridge the 
 
employed of $1,800 (annual wage of $7,200), this individual would receive $70 in weekly 
benefits or approximately $900 through California’s Unemployment Insurance, assuming 
eligibility. 
37 See, e.g., Lennon Dep. Ex. 132 at -102577
 
 
 
 (emphasis added); Letson Tr. at 100:19-22 
 
 
 
38 For example, a recent study by Payroll.org estimated that 78% of Americans are in this 
situation. See Emily Batdorf, Living Paycheck to Paycheck Statistics 2024, Forbes Advisor (Apr. 
2, 2024), https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/living-paycheck-to-paycheck-statistics-2024/. 
Another recent study found that 60% of Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck, including Super 
Prime consumers. See LendingClub, 60% of Americans Now Living Paycheck to Paycheck, 
Down from 64% a Month Ago, (Feb. 28, 2023), https://ir.lendingclub.com/news/news-
details/2023/60-of-Americans-Now-Living-Paycheck-to-Paycheck-Down-from-64-a-Month-
Ago/. 
39 Mathematica, A Longitudinal Survey of Unemployment Insurance Recipients in Two Regions 
in California at 84 (Jan. 30, 2017), https://www.mathematica.org/publications/a-longitudinal-
survey-of-unemployment-insurance-recipients-in-two-regions-in-california.  
40 CFPB, Consumer Finances During the Pandemic: Insights from the Making Ends Meet 
Survey, at 30 (Dec. 2021), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfbp_making-ends-
meet-survey-insights_report_2021-12.pdf. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34263 
Page 21 of 76

Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CPA/CFF, CFE  
Page | 18 
time until re-employment).41 In fact, a study for the Federal Reserve concluded “many families 
have little to no financial cushion.”42 (See orange highlight in excerpt below) As a result, if 
confronted with an unexpected expense as little as $400, many consumers would need to either 
borrow or sell something.43 
 
43. 
As noted in the excerpt above, the benefit of having available funds, such as the 
balance otherwise available in an EDD Cardholder account, was that the consumer could avoid 
“costly borrowing or missed payments.” (See yellow highlight) This type of harm, specifically 
the cost of borrowing, provides the foundation for my methodology to calculate consequential 
damages. 
 
41 CFPB, Consumer Finances During the Pandemic at 29. 
42 Neil Bhutta, and Lisa Dettling, Money in the Bank? Assessing Families’ Liquid Savings using 
the Survey of Consumer Finances, FEDS Notes (Nov. 19, 2018), 
https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/assessing-families-liquid-savings-
using-the-survey-of-consumer-finances-20181119.  
43 Id.; see also Lindsay Cook, What are Your Rights if Your Bank Account is Frozen?, Financial 
Times (July 23, 2020), www.ft.com/content/8fba7cac-83b3-4df3-a1a7-5b6869516085 (“For 
example, the FOS [Financial Ombudsman Service] says if a bank closes a customer’s account 
without giving them enough notice this might mean they fail to honour a cheque, direct debit or 
standing order payments. It could also lead to a direct loss in the form of interest or late payment 
fees and there could be indirect losses like ‘damage to a customer’s reputation or adverse 
information on their credit file.’”); CFPB, 2020 Consumer Response Annual Report at 69–72 
(Mar. 2021), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_2020-consumer-response-
annual-report_03-2021.pdf (indicating an inability to access an account, trouble using the card, a 
problem with a purchase or transfer and unexpected or other fees as top issues experienced with 
prepaid cards); see Brief for CFPB as Amicus Curiae Supporting Plaintiff-Appellant at 13, 
Mohamed v. Bank of America, N.A., 93 F.4th 205 (4th Cir. 2021) (No. 22-1954). 
Families often aim to build up easily accessible savings to help deal with unexpected expenses 
and disruptions to their income. Professional financial planners often recommend an 
"emergency fund" of three to six months of expenses.2 Although interest rates on savings in 
highly liquid transaction accounts are generally quite low, such savings can help avoid costly 
borrowing or missed payments when unexpected events arise. Yet there is mounting evidence 
that many families have little to no financial cushion. For example, a recent survey finds that 
many Americans would borrow or sell something to cover an unexpected $400 expense, 
suggesting very low levels of liquid savings among a large fraction of the population.3 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34264 
Page 22 of 76

Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CPA/CFF, CFE  
Page | 19 
44. 
The amount of that cost was a function of the (1) claim denial amount (i.e., the 
principal amount), (2) time the cardholder could not access those funds, and (3) the applicable 
interest rate (i.e., amount * time * rate). This method is widely accepted as a reasonable 
methodology for measuring the economic harm caused by a wrongful denial of funds.44 Courts in 
the United States have recognized that a plaintiff whose money has been wrongfully taken 
should not only be reimbursed the principal amount but also be compensated for the lost ability 
to use their funds when a wrongful act was committed by a defendant.45 
45. 
The actual amount of the denied claim for each cardholder—the first input in the 
calculation—is readily available using data produced by the Bank (see ¶¶ 38-39). The second 
input, which is the duration of time that funds were inaccessible because of the claim denial, is 
also readily available using data produced by the Bank (see ¶ 35). Accordingly, I used this data 
to calculate the duration of time applicable to each claim denial as the total number of days from 
the application of the CFF (
 to the paid date
 Here, the 
classwide median duration of a claim denial was 
 and approximately
 of claims were 
denied for more than
. 
46. 
The third input is a compound interest rate that reflects the time value of money 
for impacted cardholders, or comparable measure of the economic loss to class members 
resulting from their inability to access their UI benefits. To illustrate my methodology, I selected 
two interest rates as inputs to calculate damages.46 The first interest rate, 10%, is consistent with 
 
44 I was a principal author of the AICPA Practice Aid, Discount Rates, Risk, and Uncertainty in 
Economic Damages Calculations, which addresses these generally accepted financial principles. 
AICPA & CIMA, Discount Rates, Risks, and Uncertainty in Economic Damages (Jan. 1, 2020), 
https://www.aicpa-cima.com/resources/download/discount-rates-risks-and-uncertainty-in-
economic-damages-calculations-or-fvs. 
45 See, e.g., Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (2022) (“CACI”) No. 3935, 
Prejudgment Interest (“Prejudgment interest is the amount of interest the law provides to a 
plaintiff to compensate for the loss of the ability to use the funds.”). 
46 I understand the selection of the appropriate interest rate is ultimately an issue for the trier of 
fact to determine. 
-
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34265 
Page 23 of 76

Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CPA/CFF, CFE  
Page | 20 
the interest rate applied to judgments in California.47 The 10% rate likely understates the cost a 
consumer would have incurred during that same period, including the cost of increased 
borrowing, reduced consumption, or the inability to pay down existing debt such as credit card 
debt.48 This is because impacted cardholders would have needed to mitigate the unexpected 
inability to access their funds otherwise available in their Bank-controlled EDD accounts. 
47. 
I determined the second interest rate based on my review of the types of credit 
accessed by typical consumers. Credit cards are the most widely used form of consumer credit.49 
As a result, I concluded that the most likely source of funds accessible to an impacted cardholder 
 
47 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 685.010.(a)(1) (“Except as provided in paragraph (2), interest accrues 
at the rate of 10 percent per annum on the principal amount of a money judgment remaining 
unsatisfied.”). See, e.g., Cal. Courts Self-Help Guide, Add Costs and Interest to What’s Owed, 
https://selfhelp.courts.ca.gov/small-claims/after-trial/collect-money/add-costs-and-interest-
whats-owed (“Generally, any unpaid principal balance collects interest at 10%, or 7% if the 
debtor is a government agency.”).  
48 See, e.g., U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, Credit Cards: Pandemic Assistance Likely Helped 
Reduce Balances, and Credit Terms Varied Among Demographic Groups at 20 (Sept. 29, 2023), 
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105269 (“Pandemic-related assistance provided by the 
federal government and credit card issuers likely contributed to cardholders paying down their 
credit card balances, according to our analysis.”); Joanna Stavins, Credit Card Spending and 
Borrowing Since the Start of the COVID-19 Pandemic, Fed. Rsrv. Bank of Bos., (Oct. 19, 2023), 
https://www.bostonfed.org/publications/current-policy-perspectives/2023/credit-card-spending-
and-borrowing-since-the-start-of-the-covid-19-pandemic.aspx (“Many consumers improved their 
financial health by repaying their credit card revolving debt fully or partially.”). 
49 CFPB, Consumer Finances During the Pandemic at 17, 44. See also, CFPB, The Consumer 
Credit Card Market at 89-92, Figures 21, 22 (Sept. 2021), 
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_consumer-credit-card-
marketreport_2021.pdf (indicating the typical consumer uses credit cards); Gathergood, John, et 
al., How Do Consumers Avoid Penalty Fees? Evidence From Credit Cards, 67 Management 
Science at 2 (2020) (“Credit cards are the most common consumer unsecured borrowing 
product…”); Zinman, Jonathan, Household Debt: Facts, Puzzles, Theories, and Policies, 7 
Annual Review of Economics 251, 252 (2015) (“Another reason is that these high stakes are 
prevalent: They affect most households, including poor ones. According to recent Survey of 
Consumer Finances Chartbooks, more US households participate in the credit card market 
(approximately 70%) than hold stocks directly or indirectly (approximately 50%), and 
participation rates are substantial in the other big US consumer debt markets—mortgages (45%), 
student loans (19%), and car loans (30%).”). 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34266 
Page 24 of 76

Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CPA/CFF, CFE  
Page | 21 
would have been increased credit card utilization50 until the time the Bank credited their accounts 
for their claim(s).51 This expectation is consistent with the Federal Reserve’s data indicating that 
lower income consumers increased credit card spending following the onset of the pandemic.52 
This expectation is also consistent with the CFPB’s contemporaneous studies of utilization and 
available credit across all consumer types during the relevant period.53  
48. 
The table below summarizes then-applicable credit card interest rates based on 
consumer credit scores (i.e., the annual percentage rate or “APR”):54  
 
50 Credit card utilization refers to the amount of a consumer’s credit line that remains 
outstanding. For example, if a consumer has a credit limit of $10,000 and an outstanding balance 
of $6,000, then the consumer has a utilization rate of 60% and 40% of the credit line remains 
available. 
51 Mathematica at xix (indicating recipients’ average debt and loan amounts increased, while 
average savings did not decrease). See also CFPB, Consumer Finances During the Pandemic at 
44 (“Consumers who received some form of pandemic assistance between March 2020 and June 
2021 had higher credit card debt and higher utilization levels than those not observed in 
forbearance or receiving assistance, reflecting higher average levels of financial distress among 
this group.”).  
52 See, e.g., Joanna Stavins, Credit Card Spending and Borrowing Since the Start of the Covid-19 
Pandemic, Fed. Rsrv. Bank of Bos. (Oct. 19, 2023), 
https://www.bostonfed.org/publications/current-policy-perspectives/2023/credit-card-spending-
and-borrowing-since-the-start-of-the-covid-19-pandemic.aspx (“Although credit card spending 
and debt have risen among consumers in all income cohorts, the rate of increase has been highest 
for the bottom-income consumers.”). See also CFPB, Consumer Finances During the Pandemic 
at 6 (indicating that credit card debt rose when unemployed consumers ceased receiving 
unemployment insurance benefits).  
53 See CFPB, The Consumer Credit Card Market at 19, Table 1, and 89-92, Figures 21, 23. This 
data was analyzed in my Expert Class Certification Report dated August 29, 2024 at ¶¶ 55-56. 
54 See, e.g., id. at 19, Table 1, and 46-50, Figure 3 (Sept. 2021), (showing credit score tiers and 
APR data, respectively).  
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34267 
Page 25 of 76

Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CPA/CFF, CFE  
Page | 22 
Consumer Type 
Credit Score Range  Average APR 
Superprime 
720 or greater 
17.4% 
Prime 
660 to 719 
20.8% 
Near Prime 
620 to 659 
22.4% 
Subprime 
580 to 619 
23.3% 
Deep subprime 
579 or less 
23.6% 
49. 
The average credit score for California consumers is approximately 712 to 722.55 
Consumers with lower incomes, however, receive unemployment insurance at a higher rate than 
consumers with higher incomes.56 Additionally, consumer incomes are positively correlated with 
credit scores (e.g., higher income is associated with a higher credit score and vice versa).57 
Together, this data indicates that the applicable APR for impacted cardholders would have 
exceeded 20%. Ultimately, though, to be conservative, I selected 20% as the APR for my second 
calculation of the time value of money. This 20% rate is consistent with my prior experience 
studying unsecured consumer debt such as credit cards,58 and lower than APRs associated with 
alternative lending sources.59  
 
55 See, e.g., Equifax, What Is the Average Credit Score by State?, 
https://www.equifax.com/personal/education/credit/score/articles/-/learn/average-credit-score-
state/ (reporting an average score of 712 in California); Jennifer Streaks, The Average Credit 
Score by Age, State, and Year, Business Insider (Jul. 31, 2024), 
https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/credit-score/average-credit-score (reporting 
an average score of 722 in California); Caitlyn Moorhead, The Average Credit Score in Each 
State, Nasdaq (May 6, 2024), https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/the-average-credit-score-in-each-
state-see-where-your-state-ranks (same). 
56 Jeff Larrimore, Jacob Mortenson, & David Splinter, Unemployment Insurance in Survey and 
Administrative Data, Fed. Rsrv., https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-
notes/unemployment-insurance-in-survey-and-administrative-data-20220705.html. 
57 American Express, Average Credit Scores by Age, State, and Income (Dec. 21, 2022), 
https://www.americanexpress.com/en-us/credit-cards/credit-intel/credit-score-by-age-state/.  
58 For example, in February 2021, I published a study of economic impacts on consumers in debt 
settlement programs. My study was peer reviewed by Professor Will Dobbie at Harvard. At that 
time, I observed that APRs ranged up to 29% for distressed consumers. Greg Regan, Options for 
Consumers in Crisis: An Updated Economic Analysis of the Debt Settlement Industry (Feb. 
2021), https://ghllc.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Options-for-Consumers-Mar-2020.pdf. 
59 Fintech companies became an increased source of funding during the pandemic and low- and 
moderate- income borrowers may have accessed these additional credit sources at higher rates 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34268 
Page 26 of 76

50. 
The table below illustrates the two example calculations:60 
Claim Denial Class 
10% Rate 
20% Rate 
Princi al Amount see II.B.1 
51. 
In my opinion, these calculations are reasonable and conservative because the 
median duration of the claim denial was■ days.61 This duration data indicates that the impacted 
Cardholders' ability to fully repay their existing balance would have been constrained during this 
than for traditional products. See Ambik:a Nair & Eldar Beiseitov, The Role of Fintech in 
Unsecured Consumer Lending to Low- and Moderate-Income Individuals, Fed. Rsrv. Bank of 
N.Y. at 13 (Nov. 2023), https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibra1y/media/outreach-and-
education/household-financial-well-being/the-role-of-fintech-in-unsecured-consumer-lending-to-
low-and-moderate-income-individuals. See also, Fed. Rsrv. Bank of Cleveland, Fintech Lending 
Expands Small Businesses' Options (July 8, 2020), 
https://www.clevelandfed.org/publications/research-in-brief/2020/rib-20200709-fintech-lending 
("Small businesses that bonow from fintech lenders are much more likely to report encountering 
high interest rates or less favorable repayment terms than at banks."). I have previously been 
asked to analyze the consumer lending programs offered by Fintech lenders such as Marlette 
Funding, Avant, and Easypay for the Colorado and Massachusetts Attorney Generals Offices. In 
my experience, these lending programs involved APRs substantially in excess of 20%. In 
addition, consumers may have turned to other alternative sources such as (1) payday lenders, (2) 
buy now and pay later, or (3) penalty APRs, which typically exceed 25%. The Bank 
See Lennon Dep. Ex. 133 at -102534. The 
products available from these alternatives also typically featured APRs that exceeded 20% 
during the relevant period. See CFPB, What is a Payday Loan?, (May 28, 2024), 
https:/ /www.consumerfinance.gov/ask-cfpb/what-is-a-payday-loan-en-l 567 / (indicating APRs of 
almost 400%); Anne Marie Lee, "Buy Now, Pay Later" Plans Can Rack Up Steep Interest 
Charges. Here 's What Shoppers Should Know, CBS News (July 24, 2023), 
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/buy-now-pay-later-loans-interest-rate-fees-tips-what-to-know/ 
(indicating APRs can reach 36.99%); CFPB, Consumer Use of Buy Now, Pay Later at 21 (Mar. 
2023), https:/ /files.consumerfinance. gov/fl documents/cfpb _ consumer-use-of-buy-now-pay-
later_ 2023-03. pdf (indicating that the alternative credit card cost for Buy Now Pay Later 
oppo1tunities would be approximately 22-24%). See, e.g., Bany Bridges, What is Penalty APR 
and How do You Avoid It?, Bankrate (Mar. 12, 2024), https://www.bankrate.com/credit-
cards/zero-interest/what-is-penalty-apr/#consequences (indicating credit card issuers impose 
penalty APRs of approximately 29%). 
60 The amounts presented in the table below and other tables in this report require an offset for 
amounts that the Bank has paid or presently expects to pay pursuant to the Remediation Plan. 
These amounts are calculable if and when an award is made in this matter. 
61 Schedule 1. 
Expe11 Repo11 of Greg J. Regan, CP A/CFF, CFE 
Page I 23 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34269 
Page 27 of 76

Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CPA/CFF, CFE  
Page | 24 
time (i.e., the resulting debt balance would have been more likely to revolve thus incurring 
interest cost). Further, my calculation excludes other likely financial harms related to the Bank’s 
actions such as late or overdraft fees.62 Altogether, my methodology provides a range of 
reasonably possible outcomes amongst potential class members.  
b) 
My Methodology is Consistent with the Bank’s Method to 
Calculate Consequential Harm Payments 
52. 
Bank of America and its bank subsidiaries are subject to regulation, supervision, 
and examination by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”).63 The Bank’s 
consumer financial products and services are regulated by the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau (“CFPB”).64 
53. 
On July 14, 2022, approximately eighteen months after Plaintiffs initiated Yick v. 
Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 21-cv-00376-VC (N.D. Cal.) and thirteen months after 
Plaintiffs obtained a preliminary injunction against the Bank in that case, the CFPB and the OCC 
issued consent orders against the Bank with factual findings that are consistent with the 
allegations in this case.65 The OCC imposed a fine of $125 million and the CFPB Consent Order 
imposed a $100 million penalty.66  
 
62 CFPB, Consumer Finances During the Pandemic at 5 (“Consumers with a large income drop 
due to unemployment, who had to wait longer than four weeks to receive unemployment 
insurance benefits, or who never received any, were much more likely to have difficulty paying 
their bills.”). See also Lisa L. Gill, How to Avoid Credit Card Late Fees, Consumer Reports 
(Oct. 19, 2023), https://www.consumerreports.org/money/credit-cards/how-to-avoid-credit-card-
late-fees-a8219928529/ (“The burden of high late fees appears to fall heavily on communities of 
color, and people living paycheck to paycheck, who have less income and assets…These sharp, 
back-end penalties for paying late in effect make credit a lot more expensive for these 
customers.”).  
63 Bank of America Corp., Annual Report (Form 10-K) at 4 (Feb. 24, 2021). 
64 Id. 
65 Bank of America, N.A., CFPB No. 2022-CFPB-0004 (Jul. 14, 2022) (“CFPB Consent Order”); 
Bank of America, N.A., OCC No. AA-ENF-2022-21 (2022) (“OCC Consent Order”).  
66 Bank of America, N.A., OCC No. AA-ENF-2022-22 (2022) (“OCC Consent Order for Civil 
Money Penalty”) at Art. III ¶ 1; CFPB Consent Order at Art IX ¶ 99. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34270 
Page 28 of 76

Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CPA/CFF, CFE  
Page | 25 
54. 
Additionally, the Consent Order required the Bank to provide redress to “Affected 
Consumers,” defined under the CFPB Consent Order to include consumers who “qualified for 
and received government unemployment insurance benefit payments electronically through 
prepaid debit cards issued by Respondent [i.e., Bank of America]” and whose unauthorized-
transaction claims were erroneously denied or accounts frozen “based solely on the results of 
Respondent’s Fraud Filter.”67 The Consent Order required the redress to consumers to include 
“(i) compensation for the value of unauthorized EFTs alleged by Affected Consumers in notices 
of error that Respondent incorrectly denied through its Fraud Filter; (ii) compensation to 
Affected Consumers for related Consequential Harm …; and (iii) compensation to Affected 
Consumers through an individualized review process ….”68 The Consent Order defined 
“Consequential Harm” to mean “the financial harm Affected Consumers incurred due to the time 
their unemployment insurance benefit prepaid debit card account remained frozen or blocked 
after Respondent incorrectly determined that no error occurred on the consumer’s unemployment 
insurance benefit prepaid debit card account, based solely on the results of Respondent’s Fraud 
Filter.”69 
55. 
The Bank agreed to submit a “comprehensive written plan for providing redress 
consistent with th[e] Consent Order.”70 The Consent Order required the plan to include, among 
other things: (a) “[a] description of the methodology Respondent will use to identify Affected 
Consumers”; (b) “[a] description of the procedures and process Respondent will use to remediate 
each Affected Consumer, which shall include: (i) calculating the value of unauthorized EFTs 
alleged by Affected Consumers in notices of error that Respondent incorrectly denied through its 
Fraud Filter; (ii) calculating the lump sum Consequential Harm payment; and (iii) an 
 
67 CFPB Consent Order at Art. III ¶¶ 3(a), 93. 
68 Id.  
69 Id. at Art III ¶ 3(c). 
70 Id. at Art VII ¶ 94. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34271 
Page 29 of 76

Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CPA/CFF, CFE  
Page | 26 
individualized review process administered by an independent third-party payment administrator 
that allows Affected Consumers to seek additional redress compensation by submitting evidence 
of financial harm exceeding Consequential Harm-related payment”; (c) “[a] description of the 
methodology Respondent will use to calculate the amount of remediation to be paid as 
Consequential Harm for each Affected Consumer”; and (d) “[a] description of the methodology 
Respondent will use to identify compensable financial impacts to Affected Consumers for the 
purpose of additional redress compensation exceeding Consequential Harm-related payments in 
connection with the individualized review process.”  
56. 
On October 6, 2022, Bank of America finalized a Remediation Plan with the OCC 
and the CFPB (the “Remediation Plan”).71 As required by the Consent Order, in addition to 
providing for payment of the value of unauthorized EFTs alleged by Affected Consumers in 
notices of error that the Bank incorrectly denied through its Fraud Filter,72 the Bank’s 
Remediation Plan set forth a 
 
 
 These payments were designed to address “the financial harm 
Affected Consumers incurred due to the time their unemployment insurance benefit prepaid debit 
card account remained frozen or blocked after Respondent incorrectly determined that no error 
 
71 See generally Lennon Dep. Ex. 132; Lennon Dep. Ex. 133; Lennon Dep. Ex. 134. I understand 
that the Bank’s implementation of the Remediation Plan is ongoing as of the date of this report. 
See, e.g., 3rd Rogs, No. 22 
 
 
 4th Rogs, No. 30 
 
 
 
 Future updates because of the Bank’s activities pursuant to 
the Remediation Plan may result in changes to the amounts and numbers presented in this report. 
72 CFPB Consent Order at Art VII ¶ 93. 
73 Lennon Tr. at 59:24-60:10. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34272 
Page 30 of 76

Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CPA/CFF, CFE  
Page | 27 
occurred on the consumer’s unemployment insurance benefit prepaid debit card account, based 
solely on the results of Respondent’s Fraud Filter.”74  
57. 
Ultimately, the 
 
 
75 The 
 
 
.76 Consequently, 
 
 
77 
 
 
 (see § II.B.2.a)).78 
 
74 CFPB Consent Order at Art III ¶ 3(c). 
75 Lennon Dep. Ex. 132 at -102556-564; Lennon Dep. Ex. 133 at -102534.  
76 Id. See also Lennon Tr. at 145:1-16 
 
  
77 Approximately
 
 Lennon Dep. Ex. 132 at -102565. 
78 Id. at -102556.  
-
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34273 
Page 31 of 76

3. 
EFTA Treble Damages 
58. 
Treble damages under EFTA, 15 U.S.C. §1693f(e), can be calculated on a 
classwide basis by simply multiplying each class member's actual damages by three.79 
Claim Denial Class 
Total Actual Dama es 
Treble Amount 
4. 
EFTA Statutory Damages 
59. 
I understand the Claim Denial class asse1ts violations of multiple different 
provisions of EFTA, each of which gives rise to statuto1y damages: (1) 15 U.S.C. § 1693f(a) 
(failure to investigate Claim Denial class members' unauthorized transaction claims); (2) 15 
U.S.C. §1693f(c) (failure to issue provisional credit ifreasonable investigation of alleged enor 
not completed within 10 business days, and failure to issue pe1manent credit if reasonable 
investigation of alleged e1rnr not completed within 45 days); and (3) 15 U.S.C. § 1693f(d) 
(failure to provide a written "explanation of its findings"). In accordance with 15 U.S.C. 
§ 1693m(a)(2)(B), I understand statuto1y damages are calculated as $500,000 multiplied by the 
number of violations established . 
5. 
Disgorgement of Profits 
60. 
The objective of a disgorgement calculation is to isolate the gain obtained by the 
defendant attributable to the alleged hannful act. 80 Disgorgement can also be calculated based on 
the Bank's records. Plaintiffs and the class seek disgorgement of profits that the Bank earned on 
79 I understand that offsets to damages for amounts that the Bank has paid or will pay to 
proposed class members are applied after calculating all damages, including treble damages. 
80 Restatement of the Law (Third), Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 51 cmt a. (Am. L. Inst. 
2011) ("The principal focus of§ 51 is on cases in which unjust enrichment is measured by the 
defendant's profits, where the object of restitution is to strip the defendant of a wrongful gain."). 
Expe1t Repo1t of Greg J. Regan, CP A/CFF, CFE 
Page I 28 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34274 
Page 32 of 76

the Claim amounts that the Bank withheld from Plaintiffs and the class based on its Claim Fraud 
Filter.81 
61. 
The Bank referred to the 
. 82 The Bank generated 
62. 
I used the Bank's records to c.alculate the benefit obtained by the Bank in the f01m 
of Float Revenue for each Claim Denial class member. Specifically, 
81 Id. at § 51(4) ("Unless the mle of subsection (2) imposes a greater liability, the unjust enrichment 
of a conscious wrongdoer, or of a defaulting fiducia1y without regard to notice or fault, is the net 
profit attributable to the underlying wrong." See also id. § 51 cmt a. ("Restitution measured by the 
defendant's wrongful gain is frequently called 'disgorgement.' Other cases refer to an 'accounting' 
or an 'accounting for profits.' Whether or not these tenns are employed, the remedial issues in all 
cases of conscious wrongdoing are the same. They concern the identification and measurement of 
those gains to the defendant that should be regarded as unjust enrichment, in that they are properly 
attributable to the defendant's interference with the claimant's legally protected rights."). 
82 Transcript of the Deposition of Bank of America's Rule 30(b)(6) Designee Robert Chestnut 
("Chestnut Tr.") at 45:16-46:23. 
83 Chestnut Tr. at 46:24-48:8. 
85 See Chestnut Tr. at 61 :9-64:4 described above. 
Expe11 Report of Greg J. Regan, CP A/CFF, CFE 
Page I 29 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34275 
Page 33 of 76

. 86 I used this data to identify the applicable Float 
Revenue rate during the time between the date of each claim denial based on CFF Indicator 1 
w1til the date the class member was finally reimbursed the claim amount. 87 The total Float 
Revenue generated by the Bank attJ:ibutable to the Average Collected Balance for Claim Denial 
class members is approximately-. 88 
III. 
CREDIT RECISSION CLASS 
63. 
From approximate! 
1111, 
89 the Bank provided-
90 Upon application 
of its Claim Fraud Filter, the Bank 
91 
A. 
Identification of Credit Recission Class Members 
64. 
The members of this class are also ascertainable from the Bank's records. Bank of 
America produced data identifying the CardAliasID for each EDD cardholder who received a 
86 
e also May 2018 Standard Agreement 
pecifying that the revenue sharing 
calculation will use the Effective Federal Funds Rate). 
87 I calculated Float Revenue until April 2021, when the Float Revenue rate decreased below the 
40-basis point floor. See Litigation Services Handbook, The Role of the Financial Expe1i § 18 .31 
(5th ed. 2012) (indicating "most courts will allow the owner to include only profitable periods or 
products in its total damages claim"). 
88 Schedule 2. 
89 These dates coITespond 
. 
. 
90 3rd Rogs, No. 21 and Revised Exhibit 6, Paii 2; 1st Rogs, No. 3 and Revised Exhibit 2. 
91 Lennon Tr. at 236:18-240:24 (referencing Lennon Dep. Ex. 136-2, which is the Bank's revised 
Exhibit 2 in response to Rog 3). 
Expe1i Report of Greg J. Regan, CP A/CFF, CFE 
Page I 30 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34276 
Page 34 of 76

Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CPA/CFF, CFE  
Page | 31 
“permanent” credit from the Bank in connection with their claim, which credit the Bank later 
rescinded after September 28, 2020 based on its subsequent application of the Claim Fraud 
Filter, including: 
 
 
.92 
 
 
93 Bank of America obtained this data 
 
.94 
65. 
A total of approximately 
 unique CardAliasIDs submitted claims for which 
the Bank rescinded previously issued permanent credits because the claim triggered Claim Fraud 
Filter Indicator 1 and no other indicators.95 As described above (see ¶¶ 32, 36), I then removed 
Excluded Cardholders.96 After this exclusion, approximately 
 
 
 
  
B. 
Calculations of Credit Recission Class Damages 
1. 
Principal Amount of Actual Damages 
66. 
The principal amount of damages equals the amount of the class members’ claim 
credit that the Bank rescinded based solely on Indicator 1 of its Claim Fraud Filter. The actual 
 
92 3rd Rogs, No. 21 and Revised Exhibit 6, Part 2; 1st Rogs, No. 3 and Revised Exhibit 2. 
93 3rd Rogs, No. 21 and Revised Exhibit 6, Part 2. 
94 Id. 
95 3rd Rogs, Revised Exhibit 6, Part 2. 
96 7th Rogs, No. 46 and Exhibit 16. In addition to those identified in Exhibit 16, the Bank 
identified 
 
, who do not appear in Exhibit 16. For purposes of identifying class 
members and calculating class damages, I have also treated those 
 as 
Excluded Cardholders. 
-
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34277 
Page 35 of 76

Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CPA/CFF, CFE  
Page | 32 
amount of each such rescinded credit for each class member is readily available using data 
produced by the Bank.97 
67. 
Based on the Bank’s records, the total dollar value of the Credit Rescission class’s 
permanent credits that the Bank rescinded based solely on Indicator 1 of the CFF, and thus the 
total principal amount of damages for this Class, equals approximately 
. 
2. 
Consequential Damages 
68. 
All members of the Credit Recission class had credit that the Bank subsequently 
rescinded based solely on Indicator 1 of the CFF. From the time of the Bank’s credit reversal 
until the Bank eventually reimbursed those funds, those class members were without access to 
those funds. The 
 
.  
69. 
For the same reasons as the Claim Denial class members, the members of the 
Credit Rescission class would have incurred additional damages beyond the principal amounts 
themselves resulting from the inability to access their UI funds. Accordingly, I have applied the 
same methodology as described in § II.B.2.a) to calculate the cost of the inability to access 
impacted funds for the Credit Rescission class.98 This calculation is reasonable and conservative 
because it excludes other costs that impacted class members may have experienced such as late 
 
97 See 1st Rogs, No. 3 and Revised Exhibit 2; Lennon Dep. Ex. 132 at -102561 n.23
 
 
 
98 The damages calculated in this section are independent of the damages presented §§ III and IV 
of this report.  
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34278 
Page 36 of 76

or overdraft fees. The table below summarizes my calculations of the damages for the Credit 
Recission class:99 
Credit Rescission Class 
Princi al Amount see 66 
Total Actual Dama es 
3. 
EFTA Treble Damages 
70. 
Treble damages under EFTA, 15 U.S.C. §1693f(e), can be calculated on a 
classwide basis by multiplying each class member's actual damages (comprised of the principal 
amounts and the consequential hanns) by three. 
Credit Rescission Class 
Total Actual Dama es 
Treble Amount 
4. 
EFTA Statutory Damages 
71. 
I understand the Credit Rescission class asserts violations of multiple different 
provisions ofEFTA, each of which gives rise to statuto1y damages: (1) 15 U.S.C. §1693f(a)-(c) 
(failure to issue pe1manent credit if reasonable investigation of alleged enor not completed 
within 45 days); (2) 15 U.S.C. § 1693f(b) (failure to pe1manently correct the e1rnr within one 
business day after dete1mining than an en or did occur); and (3) 15 U.S.C. §1693f(d) (failure to 
provide a written "explanation of its findings"). In accordance with 15 U.S.C. § 1693m(a)(2)(B), 
I understand statuto1y damages are calculated as $500,000 multiplied by the number of violations 
established. 
5. 
Disgorgement of Profits 
72. 
Disgorgement can also be calculated based on the Bank's records. Plaintiffs and 
the Class seek disgorgement of profits that the Bank earned on the pe1manent credit amounts that 
99 Schedule 1. 
Expe11 Repo11 of Greg J. Regan, CP A/CFF, CFE 
Page I 33 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34279 
Page 37 of 76

Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CPA/CFF, CFE  
Page | 34 
the Bank rescinded and withheld from Plaintiffs and the class based on its Claim Fraud Filter. 
The methodology to calculate disgorgement is set forth in § II.B.5 above. The total Float 
Revenue generated by the Bank attributable to the Average Collected Balance for Credit 
Recission class members is approximately 
.100 As described therein, the Bank’s records 
may be used to calculate the benefit obtained by the Bank in the form of Float Revenue for each 
Credit Rescission class member. 
IV. 
ACCOUNT FREEZE CLASS 
A. 
Identification of Account Freeze Class Members 
73. 
As described in § I.A above, this class consists of all EDD cardholders whose 
Account the Bank froze at any time between September 28, 2020 and March 18, 2021 based 
solely on the Bank’s application of Indicator 1 of its CFF, and whose Account the Bank (i) 
subsequently unfroze, or (ii) subsequently converted from frozen to blocked status on or after 
March 18, 2021, and then unblocked.  
74. 
The members of this class are also ascertainable from the Bank’s records. To 
identify these members, I obtained the Bank’s data for all EDD cardholders whose Account was 
frozen between September 28, 2020 and March 18, 2021 based on the application of the CFF, 
and then isolated the data for only those cardholders whose accounts were frozen based on CFF 
Indicator 1 and no other CFF Indicator.101 This data was obtained from the Bank’s 
 
 
102  
 
100 Schedule 2. 
101 1st Rogs, Nos. 4-5 and Exhibit 3 thereto; 3rd Rogs, No. 21 and Exhibit 6, part 3 thereto. 
102 3rd Rogs, No. 21. 
-
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34280 
Page 38 of 76

Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CPA/CFF, CFE  
Page | 35 
75. 
The following table reflects an excerpt of the Bank’s data regarding EDD 
cardholders whose Account was frozen:103 
76. 
The data fields in the excerpt above identify the following information:104 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
77. 
As seen in the excerpt above, the data produced by the Bank 
 
 There are approximately 
 
 
.106 As described above (see ¶¶ 32, 37), I then removed all Excluded 
 
103 1st Rogs, No. 4, Revised Exhibit 3 (containing “
 
 
 
  
104 Id. 
105 Revised Exhibit 3 indicates 
 
  
106 3rd Rogs, Revised Exhibit 6, Part 3.  
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34281 
Page 39 of 76

Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CPA/CFF, CFE  
Page | 36 
Cardholders.107 After excluding these 
 
 
.108  
B. 
Calculations of Account Freeze Class Damages 
1. 
Principal Amount of Actual Damages 
78. 
The principal amount of damages for the Account Freeze class equals the amount 
of funds in their accounts to which class members were denied access when the Bank froze their 
account based solely on Indicator 1 of its CFF. The actual amount of such frozen funds for each 
Account Freeze class member is readily available using data produced by the Bank.109 
79. 
Based on the Bank’s records, the total dollar value of funds in the Account Freeze 
class’s accounts to which the Bank denied class members access based solely on Indicator 1 of 
the CFF, and thus the total principal amount of damages for this class, equals approximately 
.110 
 
107 In addition to those identified in Exhibit 16, the Bank identified 
 
 
Exhibit 16. For purposes of identifying class members and calculating class 
damages, I have also treated those
 as Excluded Cardholders. 
108 Approximately 
of these cardholders 
 
(i.e., the Bank does not appear to have produced sufficient data to calculate damages for these 
cardholders). As noted above, to the extent the Bank supplements its interrogatory responses 
with updated data before trial, including data reflecting its further implementation of the 
Remediation Plan, the identification of the members of this class can be adjusted accordingly.  
109 See 1st Rogs, No. 4-5 and Revised Exhibit 3 thereto; Lennon Dep. Ex. 132 at -102561 n.23 
 
.”) This data is identifiable in 1st Rogs, Revised 
Exhibit 3. 
110 This amount represents the total of each cardholder’s account balance at the time of the 
account freeze, and it is identifiable for each account in 1st Rogs, Revised Exhibit 3. 
-
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34282 
Page 40 of 76

Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CPA/CFF, CFE  
Page | 37 
2. 
Consequential Damages 
a) 
Cost of Inability of Access Frozen Funds 
80. 
For the same reasons as the Claim Denial class members (see § II.B), the 
members of the Account Freeze class would likely have incurred additional damages beyond the 
principal amounts themselves resulting from their inability to access their UI funds. Accordingly, 
to measure the Account Freeze class’s consequential damages, I have also applied a compound 
interest rate to the balance of frozen funds that reflects the time value of money for this 
population of cardholders. This is the same methodology described in § Error! Reference s
ource not found. above. 
81. 
For the Account Freeze class, I identified the amount and duration data specific to 
each impacted cardholder claim using the Bank’s data.111 To calculate the frozen period, I 
compared the
 
 For those accounts that were subsequently blocked 
 
 
. The table below provides two examples to illustrate these calculations:112 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
82. 
Using the data in the table above, in the case of 
 
 
. In the case of 
 
. I repeated this calculation for all members 
of the Account Freeze class.  
 
111 1st Rogs, Revised Exhibit 3 (
  
112 Id. 
-
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34283 
Page 41 of 76

the delayed receipt of these subsequent benefit payments constituted a similar but additional 
hann to the cardholders (i.e. , the cardholder was forced to access alternative funds dming this 
time). For example, the CFPB's analysis ofunemploYID:ent insmance 
84. 
The cost of delayed payments can be calculated using a common methodology for 
all Account Freeze class members based on the amount of each class member's bi-weekly 
benefit payment and the length of the delayed receipt of their subsequent benefit payments. The 
benefit payments received by each class member are asce11ainable from the Bank's records, as 
well as data from the EDD, which I plan to consider in my methodology to calculate damages at 
the time it becomes available. For present pmposes, to illustrate my calculation, 
113 Lennon Tr. at 257:23-258:5. I have not calculated this type of damage for those cardholder 
accounts that were frozen for less than fifteen days. 
114 Lennon Dep. Ex. 132 at -102563. 
115 7th Rogs, No. 44 and Exhibit 14. 
116 CFPB, Consumer Finances During the Pandemic at 32 ("Most consllIIlers who received 
unemployment benefits repo11ed having to wait significant periods to get them ... Nearly 42 
percent of consumers had to wait four or more weeks ... These delays appear to have caused 
substantial hardship."). 
117 1st Rogs, No. 4-5 and Exhibit 3 thereto. 
Expe11 Report of Greg J. Regan, CP A/CFF, CFE 
Page I 38 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34284 
Page 42 of 76

Accordingly, 
85. 
The resulting total consequential damage amounts for proposed Account Freeze 
class members are summarized in the table below: 120 
Account Freeze Class 
ments 
Total Actual Dama es 
86. 
This calculation is conservative because it excludes additional haims to 
consumers related to the lost use of frozen funds, such as the cost of late or overdraft fees. 
3. 
Disgorgement of Profits 
87. 
Disgorgement can also be calculated based on the Bank's records. Plaintiffs and 
the class seek disgorgement of profits that the Bank earned on the amounts frozen in their 
accounts that the Bank withheld from Plaintiffs and the class based on Indicator 1 of its Claim 
Fraud Filter. The methodology to calculate disgorgement is set fo1th in § II.B.5 above. The total 
Float Revenue generated by the Bank attributable to the Average Collected Balance for Account 
Freeze class members is approximate1~121 The disgorged profits can be allocated either 
per capita or pro rata among class members in propo1tion to the value of their actual damages. 
118 
• 
• 
•• I 
• 
• 
I 
• 
• 
• . 
I 
120 Schedule 1. The actual damages presented in this section are independent from the actual 
damages described in §§ II.B and III.B. 
121 Schedule 2. 
Expe1t Report of Greg J. Regan, CP A/CFF, CFE 
Page I 39 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34285 
Page 43 of 76

V. 
CUSTOMER SERVICE CLASS 
A. 
Identification of Customer Service Class Members 
88. 
The Customer Se1vice class consists of members of the Claim Denial and/or 
Credit Rescission class members who telephoned the Bank's customer se1vice phone number for 
EDD cardholders at any time between September 13, 2020 and November 21, 2020, inclusive, 
and whose telephone call was routed to the Bank's Claims call center. 
89. 
I understand that the Bank has records, including call logs, which identify eve1y 
EDD Cardholder who called the Bank's customer se1vice phone number between these dates. I 
also understand that it was the Bank's general practice to 
. 122 Accordingly, I was asked 
to assume that the Customer Se1vice class includes at minimum eve1y 
. Presently, 
.123 This number does not include EDD cardholders who may have called 
between those dates to inquire about or seek reconsideration of a claim that the Bank denied or a 
credit that the Bank rescinded based on the CFF; such cardholders would also be members of the 
Customer Se1vice class. 
122 See 5th Rogs, No. 34. 
Expe11 Report of Greg J. Regan, CP A/CFF, CFE 
Page I 40 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34286 
Page 44 of 76

90. 
Accordingly, there are at minimum approximately 
members of the 
Customer Service class, and likely many more, whose identities can be ascertained from Bank 
records. 
B. 
Calculations of Customer Service Class Damages 
1. 
Actual Damages 
91. 
I understand that an appropriate measme of damages for this class is 
compensation for the value of class members' lost time spent on hold with the Bank's Claims 
call center that was greater than the reasonable wait-on-hold time by industry standards. 
Accordingly, actual damages for the Customer Se1vice class can be calculated on a classwide 
basis as follows. 
92. 
First, Plaintiffs' call center expert, Mr. Jay Minnucci, has analyzed the Bank's call 
center data dming the relevant times and compared the "Average Speed to Answer" ("ASA") of 
the Bank's Claims call center against the industly average ASA, yielding an average excess hold 
time of approximate! 
er call.124 Next, I understand that Plaintiffs' call center expert 
has expressed the opinion that the Bank's records reflect how many times each class member 
called and was transfeITed to the Claims call center dming the relevant time period. 
93. 
These figmes may be multiplied by the applicable minimum wag~r other 
reasonable metric-to calculate the total value of class members' lost time. For clarity, 
California has a statewide minimum wage. 125 A city or county may have a higher minimum wage 
than the state's rate. 126 My methodology, however, would apply the then-cmrent California 
minimum wage as the basis to detennine the value of proposed class members' lost time. I 
understand Plaintiffs' labor economist expe1i David Levine will offer testimony that the 
124 Expe1t Repo1t of Jay Minnucci dated August 29, 2024 and Rebuttal Repo1t of Jay Minnucci 
dated November 21, 2024. 
125 State of California, Minimum Wage Frequently Asked Questions, Depait ment of Industrial 
Relations, https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_minimumwage.htm. 
126 Id. 
Expe1i Report of Greg J. Regan, CP A/CFF, CFE 
Page I 41 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34287 
Page 45 of 76

Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CPA/CFF, CFE  
Page | 42 
applicable California minimum wage is a reasonable and conservative measure of the value of 
class members’ lost time spent waiting on hold with the Bank’s Claims call center in excess of 
industry standard wait times. 
2. 
Disgorgement of Profits 
94. 
Disgorgement can also be calculated based on the Bank’s records. Plaintiffs and 
the class seek disgorgement of profits, in the form of avoided costs, that the Bank earned by 
understaffing its Claims call center, which caused the excess wait times that the Customer 
Service class members endured.127  
95. 
Plaintiffs’ call center expert has analyzed the Bank’s call center data and call 
center staffing contracts during the relevant times and has calculated the additional expenditure 
that would have been required for the Bank to staff its Claims call center from September 13, 
2020 to November 21, 2020 in a manner sufficient to provide EDD cardholders an ASA and an 
answer rate consistent with industry standards. I also understand that the percentage of total calls 
offered to the Bank’s Claims call center that are attributable to EDD cardholders can be 
reasonably estimated. The amount of profits to be disgorged to the Customer Service class can be 
calculated by multiplying the total amount of cost savings to the Bank resulting from 
understaffing its Claims call center from September 13, 2020 to November 21, 2020, and the 
percent of total calls to the Claims call center during this period attributable to Customer Service 
class members. I understand data to perform these calculations will be presented in an expert 
report from Mr. Minnucci to be issued concurrent with this expert report.  
96. 
The disgorged profits can be allocated either per capita or pro rata among class 
members in proportion to the value of their lost-time actual damages. 
 
127 Expert Report of Jay Minnucci dated August 29, 2024. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34288 
Page 46 of 76

Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CPA/CFF, CFE  
Page | 43 
VI. 
EMV CHIP CLASS 
97. 
All EDD debit cards that the Bank issued prior to July 2021 were mag-stripe-only 
cards that did not contain an EMV chip.128 I have been asked to assume that EMV chips would 
have prevented the unauthorized ATM withdrawals that were the subject of Claim Denial and 
Credit Rescission class members’ claims that triggered the Bank’s CFF Indicator 1, and provide 
a methodology to calculate damages as described below.  
A. 
Identification of EMV Chip Class Members 
98. 
I was asked to assume that the EMV Chip class consists of all members of the 
Claim Denial class and all members of the Credit Rescission class because those individuals had 
mag-stripe-only EDD debit cards with no EMV chip at the time they reported the unauthorized 
ATM withdrawal from their account. Consequently, there are approximately 
 
CardAliasIDs in the EMV Chip class.129 
B. 
Calculations of EMV Chip Class Damages 
1. 
Actual Damages 
99. 
Actual damages for the EMV Chip class can be calculated on a classwide basis as 
follows. The principal amount of damages equals the amount of funds that were taken from the 
class member’s EDD debit card account through an unauthorized ATM transaction and/or an 
unauthorized point-of-sale transaction, as reflected in the amount of the class member’s Claim 
that the Bank denied based solely on Indicator 1 of its Claim Fraud Filter. These amounts are 
identifiable in Bank records that have been produced to Plaintiffs in this litigation. Consequential 
damages can be calculated using the same two methodology described above with respect to the 
 
128 See Transcript of the Deposition of Bank’s Rule 30(b)(6) Designee William M. Martin 
(Martin Tr.) at 65:4-14. 
129 The method to identify Claim Denial class members is presented in § II.A and Credit 
Rescission class members is presented in § 63 above. To the extent a determination is made that 
additional transactions should be excluded from the EMV Chip class members’ damages, it 
would be straightforward to do so, using the Bank’s own information identifying that sub-
category of claims. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34289 
Page 47 of 76

Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CPA/CFF, CFE  
Page | 44 
Claim Denial class (see § II.B.2). For purposes of calculating consequential damages for the 
EMV Chip class, the length of time EMV Chip class members were denied access to their funds 
can be calculated from the date the Bank opened the claim until the date the Bank finally 
reimbursed the class member for the value of the claim. 
2. 
CCPA Statutory Damages 
100. 
I understand statutory damages also apply for certain individuals based on the 
amount of their actual damages.130 Specifically, if the individual has actual damages less than 
$750, their statutory damages are $750. Individuals with actual damages equal to or exceeding 
$750 will not be included in the calculation of statutory damages. These formulaic calculations 
can be performed on a classwide basis using the Bank’s data. 
3. 
Disgorgement of Profits 
101. 
Disgorgement can also be calculated based on the Bank’s records. Plaintiffs and 
the class seek disgorgement of profits, in the form of avoided costs, that the Bank earned by not 
including EMV chips in its EDD debit cards prior to July 2021 (an estimated
 per card as of 
January 2020, according to Bank documents and testimony).131 The disgorged profits can be 
allocated among the class members on a per capita basis. 
 
*  *  *  
*  *  * 
 
Dated: March 4, 2025 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
____________________________ 
Greg J. Regan, CPA/CFF, CFE 
 
130 See Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150. 
131 Martin Dep. Ex. 47 at -351839–40; Martin Tr. at 82:8-83:13. 
 
-
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34290 
Page 48 of 76

In re Bank of America California Unemploy1Dtnt Bentfits Litigation 
Schedule 1 - Calculation of Damages by CardAliasID 
Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CP A/CFF 
CardAlias ID 
Claim!'<br 
Class 
Claim Entr;· Fraud Filter File 
Dte 
Date 
Payment Net 
Claim Denial Balance at 
Paid Date Business Days 
Alnoun_t_ -+-_ F~ree
~ z_e-+ 
Frd fltr 
Frz Dt 
Action Dt 
Action Reason 
Unblock 
Dt 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34291 
Page 49 of 76

In re Bank of America California Unemploy1Dtnt Bentfits Litigation 
Schedule 1 - Calculation of Damages by CardAliasID 
Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CP A/CFF 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34292 
Page 50 of 76

In re Bank of America California Unemploy1Dtnt Bentfits Litigation 
Schedule 1 - Calculation of Damages by CardAliasID 
Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CP A/CFF 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34293 
Page 51 of 76

In re Bank of America California Unemploy1Dtnt Bentfits Litigation 
Schedule 1 - Calculation of Damages by CardAliasID 
Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CP A/CFF 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34294 
Page 52 of 76

In re Bank of America California Unemploy1Dtnt Bentfits Litigation 
Schedule 1 - Calculation of Damages by CardAliasID 
Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CP A/CFF 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34295 
Page 53 of 76

In re Bank of America California Unemploy1Dtnt Bentfits Litigation 
Schedule 1 - Calculation of Damages by CardAliasID 
Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CP A/CFF 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34296 
Page 54 of 76

In re Bank of America California Unemploy1Dtnt Bentfits Litigation 
Schedule 1 - Calculation of Damages by CardAliasID 
Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CP A/CFF 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34297 
Page 55 of 76

In re Bank of America California Unemploy1Dtnt Bentfits Litigation 
Schedule 1 - Calculation of Damages by CardAliasID 
Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CP A/CFF 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34298 
Page 56 of 76

In re Bank of America California Unemploy1Dtnt Bentfits Litigation 
Schedule 1 - Calculation of Damages by CardAliasID 
Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CP A/CFF 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34299 
Page 57 of 76

In r, Bank of America California Untmployment Benefits Litigation 
Schedule 2 - Disgorg•m•nt 
Ex:ptrt Rtport of Grtg J. Regan, CPA/CFF 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34300 
Page 58 of 76

In r, Bank of America California Untmployment Benefits Litigation 
Schedule 2 - Disgorg•m•nt 
Ex:ptrt Rtport of Grtg J. Regan, CPA/CFF 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34301 
Page 59 of 76

In r, Bank of America California Untmployment Benefits Litigation 
Schedule 2 - Disgorg•m•nt 
Ex:ptrt Rtport of Grtg J. Regan, CPA/CFF 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34302 
Page 60 of 76

In r, Bank of America California Untmployment Benefits Litigation 
Schedule 2 - Disgorg•m•nt 
Ex:ptrt Rtport of Grtg J. Regan, CPA/CFF 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34303 
Page 61 of 76

In r, Bank of America California Untmployment Benefits Litigation 
Schedule 2 - Disgorg•m•nt 
Ex:ptrt Rtport of Grtg J. Regan, CPA/CFF 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34304 
Page 62 of 76

In r, Bank of America California Untmployment Benefits Litigation 
Schedule 2 - Disgorg•m•nt 
Ex:ptrt Rtport of Grtg J. Regan, CPA/CFF 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34305 
Page 63 of 76

In r, Bank of America California Untmployment Benefits Litigation 
Schedule 2 - Disgorg•m•nt 
Ex:ptrt Rtport of Grtg J. Regan, CPA/CFF 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34306 
Page 64 of 76

In r, Bank of America California Untmployment Benefits Litigation 
Schedule 2 - Disgorg•m•nt 
Ex:ptrt Rtport of Grtg J. Regan, CPA/CFF 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34307 
Page 65 of 76

In r, Bank of America California Untmployment Benefits Litigation 
Schedule 2 - Disgorg•m•nt 
Ex:ptrt Rtport of Grtg J. Regan, CPA/CFF 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34308 
Page 66 of 76

CURRICULUM VITAE 
■ 
Appendix A 
HEMMING I MORSE 
FORENSIC & FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS 
SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE 
201 Spear Street I Suite 1100 
San Francisco, CA 94105 
T: 415.836.4000 
BURLINGAME OFFICE 
1290 Howard Ave I Suite 202 
Burlingame, CA 94010 
T: 415.836.4000 
GREG REGAN, CPA/CFF, MBA 
HEMMING.COM 
Profile 
Greg Regan is a Partner in the Forensic and Financial Consulting Services Group in the San Francisco office 
of Hemming Morse. In 2018, Greg became the Chair of California Society of CPAs Forensic Services 
Section. In 2013, Greg was appointed to the American Institute of CPA's ("AICPA") Forensic and Valuation 
Services Executive Committee. This 9-member committee establishes professional standards for practitioners 
performing consulting services that require the application of forensic or valuation-related methodologies. 
From 2010 to 2013, he served on the AICPA's Forensic and Litigation Services ("FLS") Committee. 
This 11-member committee provides professional guidance to CPA practitioners who perform accounting 
investigations, economic damage analyses such as lost profits calculations, and a variety of other services. 
Greg was the Chair of the AICPA's Damages Task Force from 2010 to 2013 and continues to be an active 
member. Greg received the AICPA's 2012 Award for the FLS Volunteer of the Year. 
Greg has testified in federal and state courts as well as in arbitrations regarding these types of forensic 
analyses. Greg is a Certified Public Accountant (CPA), a Certified Financial Forensic (CFF), and a Certified 
Fraud Examiner (CFE). Greg serves as an Officer of the California Society of Certified Public Accountants 
(CalCPA) statewide Forensic Services Committee. 
Greg received his B.S. degree in Accounting from Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., and his Masters 
in Business Administration with an Emphasis in Finance from the University of San Francisco. When he's not 
working, he enjoys spending time with his wife and coaching the sports teams of his two boys. 
PAGE1OF7 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34309 
Page 67 of 76

CURRICULUM VITAE 
■ 
Appendix A 
HEMMING I MORSE 
FORENSIC & FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS 
SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE 
201 Spear Street I Suite 1100 
San Francisco, CA 94105 
T: 415.836.4000 
BURLINGAME OFFICE 
1290 Howard Ave I Suite 202 
Burlingame, CA 94010 
T: 415.836.4000 
GREG REGAN, CPA/CFF, MBA 
HEMMING.COM 
Employment & Education 
■ Hemming Morse 2003- Present 
-Partner 
-Director, 2007-2011 
-Manager, 2003-2006 
■ Golden Gate University 2009 - 2016 
-Adjunct Professor 
-Introduction to Financial Forensic Accounting, Spring 
2009-2016 
-An In-Depth Analysis of Economic Damages, Fall 2010 
Professional & Service Affiliations 
■ Certified Public Accountant, State of California, 1998 
State of New York, 2010 
■ Certified Fraud Examiner 
■ Certified in Financial Forensics, 2008 
■ American Institute of Certified Public Accountants 
- Forensic & Valuation Services Executive Committee, 
2013-2016 
- Forensic & Litigation Services Committee, 
2010-2013 
- Chair, Damages Task Force 
- National Forensic & Valuation Conference 
- Co-Chair, 2014-2015 
- Planning Committee, 2011-2016 
■ SupportSoft, Inc. (Nasdaq: SPRT) 1999 - 2003 
■ Ernst & Young, LLP 1995 - 1999 
■ University of San Francisco 2004 - 2007 
-Masters in Business Administration with emphasis in 
Finance 
-Beta Gamma Sigma Honor Society 
■ Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. 1995 
-B.S. Accounting, Minor in Theology 
■ California Society of Certified Public Accountants 
- Co-chair, San Francisco Chapter Litigation 
Consulting Services Committee, 2006-2011 
- State Steering Committee, 2007-present 
Officer, 2012-2020 
■ CAMICO 
- Board of Directors, 2023 to present 
- Risk Management Committee, 2014-2023 
■ California CPA Education Foundation 
- Accounting &Auditing Curriculum Advisory 
Committee, 2007-2010 
■ Legal Aid of San Mateo County 
- Board of Directors, Treasurer 
■ Board of Regents, Junipero Serra High School 
PAGE2OF7 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34310 
Page 68 of 76

CURRICULUM VITAE 
■ 
Appendix A 
HEMMING I MORSE 
FORENSIC & FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS 
SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE 
201 Spear Street I Suite 1100 
San Francisco, CA 94105 
T: 415.836.4000 
BURLINGAME OFFICE 
1290 Howard Ave I Suite 202 
Burlingame, CA 94010 
T: 415.836.4000 
GREG REGAN, CPA/CFF, MBA 
HEMMING.COM 
Testimony 
Trial and Deposition 
■ Universal Packaging West, Inc. v. Somatic (2024), 
Superior Court of San Diego, Case No. 37-2019-
00050175-C U-BC-CTL 
■ Francine Shulman et al. v. Todd Kaplan et al. (2024), 
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles, 
Case No. 20VECV01406 
■ Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Stratfs, 
LLC (2024), U.S. District Court, Western District of 
New York, Case No. 1:24-cv-00040 
■ DBI Beverage Inc. V. WSJ, LLC (2023), 
Superior Court of California, San Francisco, 
Case No. CGC-20-582694 
■ Knauf Ventures, LLC v. 754 Almonte Blvd, LLC 
(2023), California Superior Court, Marin, Case No. 
CIV2003268 
■ Virgin Hotels San Francisco, LLC v. 250 Fourth 
Development, L.P. et al. (2022), Superior Court of 
California, San Francisco, Case No. CGC-20-584350 
Arbitration and Deposition 
■ Goal Acq uisitions Corp v. Sheppard Mullin (2024) 
JAMS Reference No. 5240001231 
■ Levin Simes v. Peiffer Wolf, et al. (2024), 
JAMS Reference No. 1110029750 
■ T.I.M.E. Service Catalyst Handling, LLC v. Scott 
Rogers et al. (2022), American Arbitration 
Association, Case No. 01-18-002-3360 
■ People of the State of California v Zovio, et al. 
(2027), Superior Court of California, San Diego, 
Case No. 37-2018-00046134-CU-MC-CTL 
■ Sumotext Corp. v. Zoove, Inc., et al. (2020) 
U.S. District Court, Northern District of 
California, San Jose Division, Case No. 5:16-cv-
01370-BLF 
■ PPFA, Inc. v. Center For Medical Progress, et al. 
(2019), U.S. District Court, Northern District San 
Francisco, Case No. 3:16-Cv-00236-Who 
■ ASML us, Inc, V. XTAL (2018), 
Superior Court of California, Santa Clara, Case 
No. 16-CV-295051 
■ State of Colorado v. Center for Excellence in 
Higher Education, Inc., et al. (2017), District 
Court, Denver City and State of Colorado, Case 
No. 2014cv34530 
■ Sutter Health and Sutter Health Plan v. Optum 
Insight, Inc. (2017), American Arbitration 
Association, Case No. 011500034226 
■ Cloud Cruiser, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (2017) 
JAMS Reference No. 1100085560 
PAGE3OF7 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34311 
Page 69 of 76

CURRICULUM VITAE 
■ 
Appendix A 
HEMMING I MORSE 
FORENSIC & FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS 
SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE 
201 Spear Street I Suite 1100 
San Francisco, CA 94105 
T: 415.836.4000 
BURLINGAME OFFICE 
1290 Howard Ave I Suite 202 
Burlingame, CA 94010 
T: 415.836.4000 
GREG REGAN, CPA/CFF, MBA 
HEMMING.COM 
Testimony continued 
Deposition 
■ Louis Rossetto v. Prometheus Real Estate Group, 
Inc., Trinity Ave., LLC, and Does 1-10 {2025), Superior 
Court of California, Contra Costa County, 
Case No. C23-03047 
■ Pitkin v. State Farm {2025), USDC, ND of California, 
Case No. 3:23-cv-00924-WHO 
■ David Fleury v. Union Pacific Railroad Company 
{2024), USDC, ND of Illinois, Case No. 20-cv-00390 
■ Federal Equipment Company v. lmmunityBio, Inc., 
et al (2024), USDC ND of Ohio, Case No. l:21-cv-01422 
■ Primevere LLC v. Rezident ial Development, Inc. 
(2024), Superior Court of California, Orange County, 
Case No. 30-2021-01203514-CU-BC-CJC 
■ Autumn Funkhouser-Ward v. Honeywell Interna-
tional, Inc. {2024), USDC, Southern District of Illinois, 
Case No. 3:21-cv-00485-SMY 
■ State of California ex re Mark Sersansie v. Gardens 
Regional Hospital Medical Center et. al. (2024), 
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles, 
Case No. BCS34466 
■ SEC v. Barrington Asset Management (2023), 
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Case 
No. 21-cv-3450 
■ Hewitt v. Google LLC {2023), U.S. District Court, 
Northern District of California, 
Case 4:21-cv-02155-YGR 
■ Shannon McBurnie, et al. v. RAC Acceptance 
East LLC (2022), U.S. District Court, Northern 
District of California, Case No. 3:21-cv-01429-JD 
■ Steven Gomo v. NetApp, Inc. (2022), Federal 
Court, ND CA, Case No. S:17-cv-02990-BLF 
■ Stahl and Reynolds v. Orthopedic Alliance 
(2022), U.S. District Court, Cent ral Dist rict of 
California, Case No. CV16-03966-MWF (SKx) 
■ Barry Forman v. Timot hy Covington (2022), 
Superior Court of Californ ia, San Francisco, Case 
No. CGC-21-588962 
■ Don Lee Farms v. Beyond Meat (2022), Superior 
Court of California, Los Angeles, Case No. 
BC662838 
■ New Prime Inc. v. Amazon Logistics, Inc. (2021), 
U.S. Dist rict Court, Western District of Missouri, 
Case No. 6:19-cv-03236-MDH 
■ Kiva Healt h Brands, LLC v. Kiva Brands Inc. 
(2021), U.S. District Court, Northern District of 
California, Civil No. 3:19-cv-03459-CRB 
■ Class B Investors v. 8minutenergy US Manager, 
LLC (2021), JAMS Case Reference No. 1100110779 
■ Synchrony Bank v. RevPar Collective, Inc. (2021), 
Superior Court of Californ ia, San Francisco, Case 
No. CGC-18-566487 
PAGE4OF7 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34312 
Page 70 of 76

CURRICULUM VITAE 
■ 
Appendix A 
HEMMING I MORSE 
SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE 
201 Spear Street I Suite 1100 
BURLINGAME OFFICE 
1290 Howard Ave I Suite 202 
Burlingame, CA 94010 
FORENSIC & FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS 
San Francisco, CA 94105 
T: 415.836.4000 
T: 415.836.4000 
GREG REGAN, CPA/CFF, MBA 
HEMMING.COM 
Testimony continued 
Deposition continued 
■ Bridge-Folsom, LP, v. Terra Firma Development 
Company, LTD (2021), JAMS Arbritration, No. 
1130008587 
■ SRS Acquiom, Inc. v. PNC Financial Services Group, 
Inc. (2020), U.S. District Court, District of Colorado, 
Civil Action No. l:19-cv-02005-DDD-SKC 
■ United States ex rel. Matthew Macdowell v. Synnex 
Corporation (2020), U.S. District Court, Northern 
District of California, Case No. 19-cv-00173-WHA 
■ Ahmad Hamdan v. Dorothy Reggi, et al. (2020), 
Yuba County Superior Court, Case No. CVCV18-01936 
■ Aqualegacy Development LLC v. 2012 Canrow 
Owner (2020), Superior Court of California, 
Monterey, Case No. 16CV001078 
■ Cisco Systems, Inc., And Cisco Technology, Inc. 
v. ADSI, et al. (2020), U.S. District Court, Northern 
District of California, Oakland Division, Case No. 
4:18-cv-07602 YGR 
■ Administrator v. Marlette Funding, LLC et al. (2020), 
District Court, Denver City and State of Colorado, 
Case No. 17CV30376 
■ In Re: Restasis Antitrust Lit igation (2020), U.S. 
District Court, Eastern District of New York, Case No. 
MDL No. 2819 18-MD-2819 (NG) (LB) 
■ Wet lands Preservation Foundation v. 
Depart ment of Water Resources, The Nat ure 
Conservancy (2019) Superior Court of California, 
San Joaquin, Case No. STK-CV-UWM-2018-8957 
■ Health net v. American International Specialty 
Lines Insurance Company, et al. (2019), Superior 
Court of California, Los Angeles, Case No. 
Bc357436 
■ Fred Sahadi v. Liberty Mutual Insurance. et al. 
(2019), U.S. District Court Northern District of 
California, Case No. S:18-CV-04061-LHIK 
■ Just ice Laub v. Drone Racing League, Inc. et 
al. (2019), U.S. District Court, Cent ral District of 
California, Western Division, Case No. 2:17-CV-
06210-JAK (KSX) 
■ United States Of America v. County Of Clark 
And Nevada Links, Inc. (2019), U. S. Dist rict Court 
District Of Nevada, Case No. 2:17-Cv-02303 
■ Fuse Chicken, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. (2019) 
U.S. Dist rict Court Northern Dist rict of Ohio, 
Eastern Division, Case No. S:17-cv-01538-SL 
■ Golden Gateway Center v. San Francisco 
Waterfront Part ners II, LLC (2018), Superior Court 
of Californ ia, San Francisco, Case No. CGC 15-548437 
PAGESOF7 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34313 
Page 71 of 76

CURRICULUM VITAE 
■ 
Appendix A 
HEMMING I MORSE 
FORENSIC & FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS 
SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE 
201 Spear Street I Suite 1100 
San Francisco, CA 94105 
T: 415.836.4000 
BURLINGAME OFFICE 
1290 Howard Ave I Suite 202 
Burlingame, CA 94010 
T: 415.836.4000 
GREG REGAN, CPA/CFF, MBA 
HEMMING.COM 
Testimony continued 
Deposition continued 
■ The Barrel Cellar v. Quince Pacific Avenue (2018), 
Superior Court of California, San Francisco, Case No. CGC-
17-561363 
■ Just Games Interactive Entertainment, LLC v. 
Scopely, Inc. (2018), JAMS Arbitration 
Publications 
■ "Making Sense of Forensic Accounting", CalCPA 
Magazine, 2020 
■ "Trial Testimony by Financial Experts in California 
Court: A Reference Guide to Hearsay Evidence 
Objections", CalCPA FSS, 2019 
■ "Calculating Lost Profits", AICPA Practice Aid, 2019 
■ Unblurring the Line(s) Between Accounting and Legal 
Opinions", The Witness Chair, Winter 2017 
■ "Big Data's Day in Court", Plaintiff Magazine, January 2017 
Awards 
■ AICPA, Forensic & Litigation Services Volunteer 
of the Year, 2012 
■ Mark de Bibo Company v. Ryan & Ryan 
Construction, Inc. (2017), Superior Court of 
California, San Mateo, Case No. CIV534040 
■ Amedee Geothermal Venture I v. Lassen 
Municipal Utility District (2017), Superior Court of 
California, Lassen, Case No. 59485 
■ "Attaining Reasonable Certainty in Economic 
Damages, Calculations", AICPA Practice Aid, 2015 
■ "How CPAs can benefit from Colin Powell's Rule", 
AICPA "FVS Insider" Article, August 2013 
■ "Options for Consumers in Crisis - An Economic 
Analysis of the Debt Settlement Industry", 
December 31, 2012 
■ "Discount Rates, Risk, and Uncertainty in Economic 
Damage Calculations", AICPA Practice Aid, 2012 
■ Georgetown University, Dean's Citation, 1995 
PAGE 6 OF 7 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34314 
Page 72 of 76

CURRICULUM VITAE 
■ 
Appendix A 
HEMMING I MORSE 
FORENSIC & FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS 
SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE 
201 Spear Street I Suite 1100 
San Francisco, CA 94105 
T: 415.836.4000 
BURLINGAME OFFICE 
1290 Howard Ave I Suite 202 
Burlingame, CA 94010 
T: 415.836.4000 
GREG REGAN, CPA/CFF, MBA 
HEMMING.COM 
AICPA CFF Education, Spring 2010-Present 
■ Fundamentals of the Legal System & Engagement 
Administration 
■ Reporting, Expert Reports, and the Provision of 
Testimony 
Presentations 
■ "Aligning Damages to the Claims for Relief", 
AICPA National Forensic & Valuation Services 
Conference (2023) 
■ "An Exploration of Reliance Damages", 
AICPA National Forensic & Valuation Services 
Conference (2022) 
■ "The 'State' of Sargon: 8 Years Later", CalCPA (2020) 
■ "Damages - When are they Foreseeable?", 
AICPA National Forensic & Valuation Services 
Conference, 2018 
■ "Linking Causation to Damages", AICPA National 
Forensic & Valuation Services Conference, 2017 
■ Financial Statement Investigations 
■ "Un-blurring the Lines Between Legal and Expert 
Opinions", AICPA National Forensic & Valuation 
Services Conference, 2017 
■ "Un-blurring the Lines Between Accounting and 
Legal Opinions", CalCPA Forensic Services Steering 
Committee, June 2016 
■ "Examining Cross-Examination", AICPA National 
Forensic & Valuation Conference, 2015 
■ "Experts on Offense, Experts on Defense", 
ABA National Securit ies Fraud Conference, 2014 
PAGE7OF7 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34315 
Page 73 of 76

In Re: Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation
Appendix B - Documents Considered
Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CPA/CFF dated March 4, 2025
Category
File
Case Filings
2021-05-17 [89] Order Re Prelim Inj
2021-06-02 [103] Corrected Preliminary Injunction
2023.10.05 - BANA's Supplemental Responses to Interrogatories 9 and 16
2023.10.05 -Attachment C - BANA Supp. Response to Interrogatory 9
2023-05-25 [126] Order re MTD
2023-06-13 [136] FAMCC
2023-10-13 BANA's 2nd Supp. Response to Pls. First Set of ROGs 2-6, 14-15
2024-01-02 BofA R&Os to Pls Rogs Set 4
2024-02-15 BofA Suppl Response
Attachment A - BANA's Response to Interrogatory No. 7 (CONFIDENTIAL)
Attachment B - BANA Response to Interrogatory No. 8 (CONFIDENTIAL)
BANA - MDL - Plaintiff Alias IDs (10.25.2023)
BANA Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories
BANA Verification of Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories (9.5.23)
BANA Verification to BANA's Revised Supplemental Responses to Interrogatories 2-6 and 14-15 (12.01.23)
BANA's First Set of Responses to Plaintiffs' Seventh Set of Interrogs (40-41, 44-46) (4.19.24)
BANA's Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs Fourth Set of Interrogatories
BANA's Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs Third Set of Interrogatories
BANA's Revised Supplemental Responses to Interrogatories 2-6_ 14-15 (12.01.23)
BANA's Verification to Plaintiffs' Fifth Set of Rogs (2.3.24)
BANA's Verification to Plaintiffs' Fourth Set of Rogs (1.3.24) (1)
BofA 10/6/22 BofA Remediation Plan to OCC and CFPB Consent Orders
Data Dictionary to Interrogatory 27.xlsx
Decl. of Jennifer Lennon ISO Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class 
Certification
Decl. of William M. Martin ISO of Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class 
Certification
Defendant's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class 
Certification
Exhibit 1 - BANA Response to Interrogs. 2 and 6.xlsx
Exhibit 10 - BANA's Response to Interrog 30 (pt 2).xlsx
Exhibit 11 - BANA's Response to Interrog 32.xlsx
Exhibit 12 - BANA's Response to Interrog 33.xlsx
Exhibit 15 - BANA's Response to Interrog 45.xlsb
Exhibit 16 - BANA's Response to Interrog 46.xlsx
Exhibit 2 - BANA Response to Interrog. 3 .xlsx
Exhibit 3 - BANA Response to Interrogs. 4 and 5.xlsx
Exhibit 4 - BANA Response to Interrogs. 14-15 (Direct Comp.).xlsx
Exhibit 4 Rogs 14-15.xlsx
Exhibit 5 - BANA Response to Interrogs. 14 and 15 (IRP).xlsx
Exhibit 5 - Rogs 14 and 15 (IRP).xlsx
Exhibit 6 - BANA Response to Interrog 21.xlsx
Exhibit 6 - Supplemental BANA Response to Interrog 21.xlsx
Exhibit 7 - BANA Response to Interrog 22.xlsx
Exhibit 8 - BANA Response to Interrog 27.xlsx
Exhibit 8 - BANA's Response to Interrog 27.xlsx
Exhibit 9 - BANA's Response to Interrog 30 (pt 1).xlsx
Revised Exhibit 1 - BANA Response to Interrogs. 2 and 6 -20231201.xlsx
Revised Exhibit 1 - Rogs 2 and 6 xlsx.xlsx
Revised Exhibit 2 - BANA Response to Interrog 3 (12.20.23).xlsx
Revised Exhibit 3 - BANA Response to Interrogs 4 and 5 (12.20.23).xlsx
Revised Exhibit 4 - BANA Response to Interrogs. 14 and 15 (Direct Comp) - 20231201.xlsx
Revised Exhibit 4 Rogs. 14 and 15.xlsx
Revised Exhibit 5 - BANA Response to Interrogs. 14 and 15 (IRP) - 20231201.xlsx
Revised Exhibit 5 Rogs. 14 and 15.xlsx
Rogs 4 and 5 Data Dictionary 96460.xlsx
Second Amended Master Consolidated Complaint 
Third Amended Master Consolidated Complaint
Depositions & Exhibits30(b)(6) Deposition of Michael Letson dated February 16, 2024
Deposition of Jennifer Lennon (30)(b)(6) dated February 23, 2024
Deposition of Matthew Martin dated February 14, 2024
Depositon of Robert A. Chestnut dated February 8, 2024
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34316 
Page 74 of 76

In Re: Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation
Appendix B - Documents Considered
Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CPA/CFF dated March 4, 2025
Category
File
Document Production BANA EDD MDL VOL027
BANA_EDD_MDL-00019733 - Q4 2020 Quarterly Prepaid Business Review
BANA_EDD_MDL-00102472-587
BANA_EDD_MDL-00282498 - Q2 2021 Prepaid Quarterly Business Review
BANA_EDD_MDL-00510125.xlsx
BANAEDD MDL-00517105
Bank-EDD Contract M6100352 05-14-18 Amendment to Revenue Share
Research
AICPA Practice Aid, Discount Rates, Risk, and Uncertainty in Economic Damages Calculations
American Express, “Average Credit Scores by Age, State, and Income”
Bank_of_America_Corporation_-_Form_10-K(Feb-20-2024)
Bank_of_America_Corporation_-_Form_10-K(Feb-22-2022)
Bank_of_America_Corporation_-_Form_10-K(Feb-22-2023)
California City and County Minimum Wages as of 7.1.2021, UC Berkeley Labor Center.pdf
CBO, "Characteristics of People Receiving Regular Unemployment Benefits in July 2020"
CFPB amicus brief filed in Mohamed v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 22-1954 (4th Cir.)
CFPB Consent Order
CFPB, "Consumer Credit Card Market Report", September 2023
CFPB, "Consumer Finances During the Pandemic," December 2021
CFPB, "Consumer Response Annual Report", March 2021
CFPB, "Consumer Use of Buy Now Pay Later", March 2023
CFPB, "Credit Card Late Fees", March 2022
CFPB, "The Consumer Credit Card Market," September 2021
CFPB, 2020 Consumer Response Annual Report 
CFPB, Consumer Response Annual Report, March 2021 
CFPB, Consumer use of buy-now-pay-later, March 2023
CFPB, Making ends meet survey insights report, December 2021
CFPB, Mohamed v. Bank of America N.A.
CFPB, The Consumer Credit Card Market, September 2021
Chris Wheat, Erica Deadman, and Daniel M. Sullivan, How Vulnerable Are Americans to Unexpected 
Expenses.pdf
Consumer Reports, “How to Avoid Credit Card Late Fees,” by Lisa Gill, October 19, 2023
Credit Cards- Pandemic Assistance Likely Helped Reduce Balances, and Credit Terms Varied among 
Demographic Groups, Sept 23
EDD, "For Your Benefit, California's Programs for the Unemployed, DE 2320 Rev. 67
Eligibility Requirements, State of California Employment Development Department.pdf
Emp. Dev. Dep’t (EDD), State of California, About Our Branches, 
https://edd.ca.gov/en/about_edd/about_edd/
Federal Register, 89 FR 19128
Federal Register, CFPB Late Fees, 2024-05011
Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Credit Card Spending and Borrowing since the Start of the Covid-19 
Pandemic, by Joanna Stavins, October 19, 2023
Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, "Fintech Lending Expands Small Businesses’ Options", July 2020
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, "The Role of Fintech in Unsecured Consumer Lending to Low- and 
Moderate-Income Individuals", November 2023
Federal Reserve, “Unemployment Insurance in Survey and Administrative Data”
Financial Times, “What are your rights if your bank account is frozen?”, July 23, 2020 by Lindsay Cook
Forbes, "2022 Credit Card Late Fees Cost Consumers Record $15 Billion," by Katharina Buchholz, March 6, 
2024
Forbes, "Living Paycheck to Paycheck Statistics 2024, by Emily Batdorf, April 2, 2024
https://data.census.gov/table?q=median%20income&g=040XX00US06&y=2020
https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_minimumwage.htm
Irena Asmundson and Mark Duggan, “Overdue: Why California needs to reform unemployment insurance 
funding,” Stanford Institute for Economic Research Policy (SIEPR), Mar. 2022
Joanna Stavins, Credit Card Spending and Borrowing Since the Start of the Covid19 Pandemic, Federal 
Reserve Bank of Boston, October 19, 2023
Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (2022) 
Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), State of California and Gabriel Petek, Improving California’s 
Unemployment Insurance Program, LAO, Aug. 2022
Lending Club, "60% of Americans Now Living Paycheck to Paycheck, Down from 64% a Month Ago", 
February 28, 2023
Lending Club, "Nearly 60% of Credit Cardholders in the U.S. Live Paycheck to Paycheck", December 18, 
2023
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34317 
Page 75 of 76

In Re: Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation
Appendix B - Documents Considered
Expert Report of Greg J. Regan, CPA/CFF dated March 4, 2025
Category
File
Research
Mark Duggan, “Overdue: Why California needs to reform unemployment insurance funding,” Stanford 
Institute for Economic Research Policy (SIEPR), Mar. 2022
Mathematica Policy Research Report, “A Longitudinal Survey of Unemployment Insurance Recipients in 
Two Regions in California,” January 2017
Minimum Wage Frequently Asked Questions, State of California Department of Industrial Relations, July 
2024.pdf
Neil Bhutta, and Lisa Dettling, Money in the Bank - Assessing Families Liquid Savings using the Survey of 
Consumer Finances
OCC Consent Order
Personal Consumption Expenditures by State, 2020, Bureau of Economic Analysis, October 8, 2021
Sarah Bohn, Marisol Cuellar Mejia, and Julien Lafortune, Unemployment Benefits in the COVID-19 
Pandemic.pdf
Expert Reports
Expert Report of Jane Cloninger dated August 29, 2024
Expert Report of Jay Minnucci dated August 29, 2024
Expert Report of Pamela Joseph dated October 24, 2024
Expert Report of Stephen Hindle dated October 24, 2024
Expert Report of Victor Stango dated October 24, 2024 and supporting materials
Rebuttal Report of Jay Minnucci dated November 21, 2024
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 567-12     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34318 
Page 76 of 76

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.567.12.pdf

Size

7,492,181 bytes

SHA-256

0cd4defbe128b22053151fc9141dbc26d43c2a7461f45388dd1bbc9cc00495a8

Our copy

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.567.12.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)