Exhibit 12 — Marshall v. Prestamos CDFI, LLC (Dkt. 163-14, E.D. Pa. No. 5:21-cv-04337)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · No. 5:21-cv-04337-JMG · Doc. 163-14 · 2025-05-21 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

EX. 12 -- THE REPORT OF WILLIAM M. 
MANGER, JR. (“MANGER”) DATED JULY 12, 
2024 
Pla Appx 3292
Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG     Document 163-14     Filed 05/21/25     Page 1 of 15

 
REPORT OF WILLIAM M. MANGER, JR 
I. 
Qualifications 
1. 
I served in the United States Small Business Administration (the “SBA”) for a total 
of almost eight years, from 2005 to 2009 and again from 2017 to January 2021.  Most recently, I 
was Chief of Staff of the SBA from March 2020 to January 2021, during which I oversaw and led 
the SBA’s implementation of the Paycheck Protection Program (the “PPP”).  In that role, I was 
responsible for promulgating PPP-specific rules and guidance, implementing PPP-specific 
processes at the SBA, and communicating with lenders, trade associations, government agencies, 
and members of Congress.  I left the SBA in January 2021 and am now an independent consultant. 
2. 
Prior to and concurrent with my role as Chief of Staff, I was the Associate 
Administrator, Office of Capital Access at the SBA from March 2017 to January 2021.  In that 
role, I was responsible for delivering approximately $30 billion annually to small businesses 
through the SBA’s main lending programs, including the 7(a) Loan Program, 504 Loan Program, 
and the Microloan Program.  I was responsible for drafting rules and regulations including the 
Standard Operating Procedures (“SOPs”) that governed the loan programs.  The SBA’s SOPs 
detail the rules, policies, and procedures that govern eligibility for and participation in the SBA’s 
loan programs.     
3. 
I was also involved in the creation of the SBA’s PPP-specific IFRs and FAQs that 
modified the existing 7(a) regulations.  Specifically, I was involved in the drafting, revising, and 
finalizing the April 2020 Final Rule and the January 2021 Final Rule (both defined below). 
4. 
Prior to serving in the SBA from 2017 to 2021, I was a Managing Director at Brock 
Capital Group, LLC, a boutique investment bank and consulting firm, from 2009 to March 2017.   
5. 
From 2007 to 2009, I served in the SBA as Associate Administrator, Office of Field 
Operations.  In that role, I was responsible for the operational management of the SBA’s field 
Pla Appx 3293
Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG     Document 163-14     Filed 05/21/25     Page 2 of 15

- 2 - 
infrastructure and oversaw nearly 1,000 employees at the SBA’s ten regional and 68 district offices 
throughout the United States and its territories.  I provided policy guidance and assisted the 
Administrator in setting goals.  In addition, for several months in 2008, I also served as Associate 
Administrator, Office of Entrepreneurial Development, during which I oversaw the SBA’s 
resource partners:  Small Business Development Centers, Women’s Business Centers and SCORE. 
6. 
From 2005 to 2007, I was the Regional Administrator of the SBA for Region II, 
which covered all of New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands.  I was 
responsible for the delivery of the SBA’s financial assistance, management counseling, business 
development, and minority development activities throughout the Region.  I also was a member 
of the Management Board responsible for implementing policy. 
7. 
A copy of my resume is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 
II. 
Background 
8.   
I was retained by Bailey & Glasser LLP as counsel to Alicia Marshal, Georgina 
Drevnak and other Plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”) in this case.  The defendants are Prestamos CDFI, 
LLC (“Prestamos”) and its parent company Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (“CPLC”) 
(“Defendants”), although I understand that the Court previously dismissed CPLC on grounds of 
jurisdiction.  Based on information I received from counsel to the Plaintiffs and other 
information, including the Third Amended Class Action Complaint (the “Complaint”), additional 
documents filed and evidence produced in the case as well as SBA Rules and SOPs and other 
information, I understand that Prestamos is a Community Development Financial Institution 
(CDFI) that was authorized to make PPP loans under the CARES Act.  I also understand that 
plaintiffs contend that PPP loans made to them by Prestamos were approved by the SBA to be 
funded, but not disbursed to plaintiffs and the class by Prestamos and that Prestamos still 
Pla Appx 3294
Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG     Document 163-14     Filed 05/21/25     Page 3 of 15

- 3 - 
obtained a loan processing fee from the SBA for those unfunded loans by falsely reporting to the 
SBA via SBA Form 1502 reports that the loans were funded.   
  
9. 
I am being compensated for my expert services in connection with this case at a 
rate of $650 per hour except testimony at deposition and trial, in which case my rate is $750 per 
hour.  My compensation is not contingent on the nature and substance of my opinions or on the 
outcome of the case.   
III. 
The SBA’s Section 7(a) Loan Program and PPP 
10. 
The SBA was formed during the Eisenhower Administration in 1953.  The SBA’s 
mission is to “aid, counsel, assist and protect the interests of small business concerns, to preserve 
free competitive enterprise and to maintain and strengthen the overall economy of our nation.”  
(SBA, Organization, available at http://www.sba.gov/about-sba.organization). 
11. 
One way the SBA accomplishes its mission is by providing small businesses with 
access to credit through various lending programs, the most common of which is the 7(a) Loan 
Program.  (The 7(a) Program is named after Section 7(a) of the Small Business Act.  15 U.S.C. 
§ 636(a)).  Under the 7(a) Program, the SBA facilitates lending to qualifying small businesses, 
which may not otherwise qualify for loans, by guaranteeing up to 85% of the value of loans made 
to them. 
12. 
In late March 2020, in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, the President signed 
into law the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”), which created 
the PPP.  (Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281 (Mar. 27, 2020).  The PPP was designed to aid small 
businesses and non-profits that were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic by providing emergency 
funding to make payroll and pay utilities, rent, and mortgage payments.  If used for those purposes, 
PPP loans were also designed and intended to be forgivable. To obtain forgiveness, however, the 
PPP loan recipient had to actually receive the loan proceeds because the loan recipient had to 
Pla Appx 3295
Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG     Document 163-14     Filed 05/21/25     Page 4 of 15

- 4 - 
certify that he or she used those funds for the specific purposes permitted by the PPP.  Here as 
alleged, the plaintiffs and class members’ PPP loans were not funded and so they could not make 
that certification or obtain loan forgiveness. 
13. 
The 7(a) Program served as the framework for the PPP, and like the 7(a) Program, 
the PPP encouraged lending to small businesses and non-profits by way of SBA-guaranteed private 
loans.  However, in light of the pandemic’s effects on small businesses, the PPP went further than 
the 7(a) Program.  Under the PPP, for example, the SBA guaranteed 100% of qualifying loans, 
forgave the loans in their entirety if used for specified purposes as noted above, and waived its 
guaranty fees.  Lenders collected loan-processing fees, in addition to 1% interest, but, due to the 
SBA’s guarantee and forgiveness obligations, faced no financial risk from borrowers not repaying 
the loans. 
14. 
In my role as Chief of Staff, I was informed that the PPP had to be up and running 
one week after the CARES Act was signed into law.  The SBA team and I worked around the clock 
to issue PPP-specific Interim Final Rules (IFRs), where needed, and to update technology systems 
to allow lenders to submit PPP loan applications.  Within one week of the CARES Act being 
signed into law, lenders were able to submit applications and make loans under the PPP.  In the 
first fourteen days of the PPP, the SBA processed nearly fourteen years’ worth of loans.  
Ultimately, more than three quarters of a trillion dollars were made available to small businesses 
and not-for-profits through the program. 
15. 
The lenders that participated in the early days of the PPP were generally the same 
that participated in the 7(a) Program.  The total number of initial lenders was approximately 1,700.  
The SBA worked to get thousands of additional lenders into the program and, when it was fully 
ramped up, more than 5,000 lenders were participating.  
Pla Appx 3296
Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG     Document 163-14     Filed 05/21/25     Page 5 of 15

- 5 - 
IV. 
SBA Rules Governing the 7(a) Program and the PPP 
16. 
In general, because of the two programs’ similarities, the 7(a) Program’s then-
existing regulations and SOPs formed the framework for the implementation of the PPP.  Except 
as provided for in PPP-specific IFRs and FAQs, the existing 7(a) regulations and SOPs governed 
the PPP. 
17. 
Following the passing of the CARES Act, the SBA issued the first PPP-specific 
IFR on April 15, 2020, which was titled “Business Loan Program Temporary Changes; Paycheck 
Protection Program” (the “April 2020 Final Rule”). (85 Fed. Reg. 20811 (Apr. 15, 2020)). Among 
other things, the April 2020 Final Rule provided incentives to lenders to make PPP loans by 
providing that, for funding PPP loans of $350,000 or less, the SBA would pay to lenders a 
processing fee of 5% of the loan amount.     
18. 
Lenders could use their own form of a Promissory Note or utilize a standardized 
SBA Promissory Note as the legal instrument governing the terms between the lender and the 
borrower.  It is my understanding that Prestamos utilized the SBA standardized Promissory Note 
for its lending transactions under PPP.  Plaintiffs filed a copy of that Note in full with the Court 
along with their Complaint which I have also reviewed in preparing this report.  It is reasonable to 
assume that a PPP lender requesting a signed SBA Promissory Note from a borrower entered into 
an agreement to make a PPP loan with its accompanying specific terms of repayment and the 
possibility of forgiveness. 
19. 
The SBA wanted to ensure the prompt distribution of funds from participating 
lenders to PPP borrowers because of the consequences of the pandemic which notably included 
government-imposed lockdowns.  Once a lender received SBA approval for a PPP loan by 
receiving a loan number through SBA’s Etran system, the timing clock commenced.  “The lender 
Pla Appx 3297
Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG     Document 163-14     Filed 05/21/25     Page 6 of 15

- 6 - 
must make a one-time, full disbursement of the PPP loan within ten calendar days of loan approval; 
for the purposes of this rule, a loan is considered approved when the loan is assigned a loan number 
by SBA.” (85 Fed. Reg. 26321 (May 4, 2020)). The rule goes on to state that a lender must report 
disbursement of a PPP loan by filing an SBA Form 1502 which triggers the payment by SBA of 
the processing fee to the lender.  The pertinent section reads, “In addition to providing the ACH 
credit information to direct payment of the requested processing fee, lenders will be required to 
confirm that all PPP loans for which the lender is requesting a processing fee have been fully 
disbursed on the disbursement dates and in the loan amount reported.  A lender must report through 
either Etran Servicing or the SBA Form 1502 report any PPP loans that have been cancelled before 
disbursement or that have been cancelled or voluntarily terminated and repaid after disbursement.”  
The section concludes by stating the intention of the Administrator of the SBA and the Secretary 
of the Treasury, “The Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary, determined that requiring 
lenders to report on disbursement within 20 calendar days of loan approval ensures that the 
disbursement of funds to eligible borrowers will occur rapidly.”   
 
20. 
Based on the above rules, if the borrower submitted the loan documents and 
Prestamos received an SBA loan number signifying that a PPP loan was approved, Prestamos 
was required to make a full disbursement of the loan amount and record it with the SBA by filing 
a Form 1502 within 20 days.  The lender would also be responsible for submitting a Form 1502 
on a monthly basis to report any updates concerning the status of the loan.  To  quote the 
Complaint, the definition of the class in this case  includes only those from Plaintiffs’ respective 
states “who, in 2021, applied for PPP loans with defendant Prestamos as the lender for whom the 
SBA provided a SBA loan number, and who executed and submitted their Loan Documents and 
provided to Prestamos all required loan documentation, but as to whom Prestamos both failed to 
Pla Appx 3298
Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG     Document 163-14     Filed 05/21/25     Page 7 of 15

- 7 - 
disburse the PPP loan proceeds and reported to the SBA that the loan proceeds were disbursed.”   
See Complaint paras. 376 – 377. The evidence also shows that Prestamos obtained advances on 
unfunded loans from the Federal Reserve’s PPP Liquidity Facility (the “PPPLF”) via the PPP 
Pledge and Advance Request (“PAR”) forms. I have not seen any evidence indicating that 
Prestamos returned to the PPPLF or otherwise to the U.S. Federal Reserve any of those PPPLF 
advances it obtained but failed to disburse to SBA-approved borrowers. Further under the PPP, 
PPPLF advances were actually secured by each such loan. Here, Plaintiffs allege that Prestamos 
did not pay the loan proceeds to any of these Plaintiffs or class members, regardless of whether 
Prestamos tried to do so. See Complaint, paras. 397-400, 404-405, 414.  If the loans were not 
fully disbursed to the Plaintiff or class member, Prestamos should not have filed an SBA Form 
1502.  Further, Prestamos also should have returned the advances to the PPPLF that it did not 
disburse to the SBA-approved borrower. In addition, Prestamos should not have received the 
SBA lender’s fee for those undisbursed loans.  In fact, the SBA Form 1502 was to be filed only 
after, and subject to, the PPP loan actually being funded. A mere attempt to fund a loan, or an 
attempt to do so that, for instance, the borrower’s bank rejected, should have resulted in the loan 
being cancelled in SBA’s e-tran system and no payment of the loan processing fee being made 
by the SBA to the lender.  In fact, as noted above lenders were also required to update and file 
the 1502 reports on a monthly basis, and to accurately report the information contained in those 
reports concerning the status of the loan. I understand that Prestamos objected earlier in this case 
to producing to Plaintiffs any of the Form 1502 reports and PARs on grounds of alleged 
relevance, and that Plaintiffs had to seek to compel production of them (see Plaintiffs’ letter to 
the Court dated July 14, 2023 and Prestamos’ response dated July 18, 2023, which are available 
at the Marshall, et al. v. Prestamos CDFI, LLC and Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc., 5:21-cv-
Pla Appx 3299
Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG     Document 163-14     Filed 05/21/25     Page 8 of 15

- 8 - 
04337-JMG (E.D. Pa.) docket in this case, at nos. 76 and 78).  See also Letter, docket no. 78 at p. 
1, from Prestamos’ counsel to Judge Gallagher (“The [Form 1502 reports and PARs] are 
irrelevant to Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim.”). In my view, the Form 1502 reports and PARs 
are highly relevant in this case.  Among other things, advances from the PPPLF via the PARs 
were secured by the loans and pledged by the lender under the PPP for that purpose, and the 
filing of the Form 1502s not only signify when a loan was reported as fully disbursed to the 
borrower, but also triggered payment of the loan fee from the SBA to the lender. In fact, the 
Form 1502s were how the lenders were to report on the alleged funding and status of PPP loans.          
21. 
Under the CARES Act and the first round of PPP lending, many small businesses 
had difficulty obtaining small-sized PPP loans.  That was because some lenders were not able to, 
or not willing to, devote the resources necessary to fund a small-sized PPP loan to collect a 
processing fee of 5% of the loan amount.   
22. 
In December 2020, Congress attempted to solve this problem by passing 
theEconomic Aid to Hard-Hit Small Businesses, Nonprofits, and Venues Act (“Economic Aid 
Act”), increasing the available lender processing fees for PPP loans of $50,000 or less from 5% of 
the loan to the lesser of 50% or $2,500. (Title III of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021. 
Pub. L. No. 116-260, 134 Stat. 1182 (Dec. 27, 2020)). 
23. 
While the change in the processing fee schedule was made to encourage lenders to 
make smaller loans to the smallest of small businesses, the processing fees were only to be paid 
by the SBA for loans that were disbursed.  Lenders were required to report and record accurately 
full disbursement of PPP loans by filing an SBA Form 1502 with the Agency.  If the loan was not 
successfully funded and the lender nevertheless filed a Form 1502, the lender necessarily 
misrepresented the status of the loan as being funded.  Loans could be canceled with the SBA prior 
Pla Appx 3300
Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG     Document 163-14     Filed 05/21/25     Page 9 of 15

- 9 - 
to disbursement for which no processing fee would be paid.  Loans could also be cancelled before 
disbursement and cancelled or voluntarily terminated and repaid after disbursement. In both 
instances the lender would be ineligible for the SBA’s lender fee.  (Second Updated Paycheck 
Protection Program Lender Processing Fee Payment and 1502 Reporting Process, SBA Procedural 
Notice (Feb. 8, 2021)).  If a lender was given a loan number by the SBA for a PPP loan and then 
submitted a Form 1502 but did not fully disburse the loan, this would be both inconsistent with the 
program and in violation of the rules.  Plaintiffs also claim that they are potentially bound under 
their note and accompanying standard form loan document agreements to pay back to Prestamos 
loan proceeds they failed to receive plus interest. Plaintiffs also allege that two plaintiffs (Drevnak 
and Lloyd) who never received loan proceeds were requested by Prestamos to repay PPP loan 
amounts plus interest, and quote in their Complaint Prestamos’ correspondence sent to those 
Plaintiffs.  (Third Amended Class Action Complaint, (para. 253, 258, 296-297)).  This attempt to 
collect repayment plus interest clearly is in my view unfair and does not make sense. 
24. I submitted a report concerning class certification in another PPP-related case,  
Greathouse v. Capital Plus Financial, LLC, 2023 WL 5746927 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 6, 2023). The 
defendants there moved to strike my report which the Court denied (at footnote 2), and the Court 
also denied class certification. I have also reviewed the Court’s ruling on class certification and 
that Court’s separate ruling issued that same day largely denying the motions to dismiss in that 
case, which is reported at 2023 WL 5759250, among other information. The proposed classes in 
this case are narrower than alleged in the Capital Plus case. First, the classes alleged here are not 
national classes as in Capital Plus but instead are confined to specific states where Plaintiffs reside 
or were injured by being deprived of loan funding consistent with the ruling of the Court in this 
case that Plaintiffs have only “in-state” standing to maintain the breach of contract claims alleged. 
Pla Appx 3301
Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG     Document 163-14     Filed 05/21/25     Page 10 of 15

- 10 - 
Complaint paras. 376 – 377. The Court’s March 30, 2023 ruling in this case concerning Prestamos’ 
motion to dismiss is reported at docket nos. 56-57, and 2023 WL 2727541. Second and also unlike 
Capital Plus, the issue of why a loan was not funded is not material in this case because, by 
definition, all of Plaintiffs’ and class members’ loans were not funded but Prestamos falsely 
reported via the Form 1502s that the loans were funded. As Plaintiffs allege, whether Plaintiffs 
and class members were or were not funded is a simple “binary question” answerable classwide – 
yes or no, and here as alleged the answer is no. Complaint para. 393.      
 
25.  The language at the end of the Promissory Note in section 10 “Release of Lender” 
specifically addresses “extensions of credit” made “on or prior to the date hereof.”  (Third 
Amended Class Action Complaint, Exhibit A at section 10.) PPP loans were not lines of credit.  In 
this situation in the context of the PPP, “extension of credit” would mean funding of a loan.  For 
the language to be applicable, the PPP loan would have to have been funded “on or prior to the 
date” the Note was signed, which did not happen.  Under the PPP as noted above, the Note had to 
be first executed by the lender and borrower, the borrower had to submit all requisite loan 
documentation, and then the lender thereafter had to fund the PPP loan within the time period 
under PPP rules. The language is also broad and in theory would also pertain to the funding of 
loans, if any, previously made by Prestamos to the Plaintiffs and class members separate and apart 
from PPP.   The Court in the Capital Plus case found that this release was also void as “against 
public policy.”  Judge Mark T. Pittman states in his decision in Capital Plus, “For PPP loan 
agreements, there is no customization or negotiation of the core terms of the agreement because it 
is prescribed by statute.  Plaintiffs could not take to the marketplace to hunt down a better rate or 
deal.”  See Capital Plus, 2023 WL 5759250 at *15.  Finally, a central purpose of the PPP was to 
make money available to small businesses and not-for-profits as loans that would then be forgiven, 
Pla Appx 3302
Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG     Document 163-14     Filed 05/21/25     Page 11 of 15

essentially creating and distributing grants. By not funding loans to approved PPP applicants with
SBA loan numbers and who had submitted the loan documents, Prestamos not only deprived
Plaintiffs of critical guaranteed federal money, but also precluded them from applying to other
lenders, obtaining forgiveness and potentially subjecting them to repayment of loans they did not
receive plus interest.
Dated this 12th, day of July 2024
William M. Manger, Jr.
-1l-
oo
Ae
ttMaga
I
Pla Appx 3303
Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG     Document 163-14     Filed 05/21/25     Page 12 of 15

- 12 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Exhibit A 
(Resume of William M. Manger, Jr.) 
 
Pla Appx 3304
Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG     Document 163-14     Filed 05/21/25     Page 13 of 15

continued… 
WILLIAM M. MANGER, JR.  
631-255-2288 ▪ wmmanger@gmail.com  
New York, NY ▪ Linkedin.com/in/bill-manger-7815565/ 
SENIOR OPERATIONS LEADER  
25+ years of executing significant strategic, operational and organizational agendas  
 
Senior operations leader and chief of staff with an unparalleled track record of delivering operational excellence to achieve strategic 
goals within the government, banking and finance sectors. Served at the highest levels of government, most recently as the architect 
of the immediate transformation of the US Small Business Administration to respond to the Cares Act by implementing the Paycheck 
Protection Program. Currently seeking to leverage vast operational leadership experience within the private sector. 
 
✓ Trusted advisor to senior leadership: consistently appointed to co-lead and advise on large-scale and complex 
transformations and operational agendas. Known for simplifying complexity, anticipating and resolving problems, mitigating 
risks and adding strategic value. 
 
✓ Strategic integrator: exceptional ability to serve at the nexus of an enterprise to align and operationalize across functions. 
 
✓ Highly adept communicator with commanding executive and leadership presence: successfully communicates at all levels 
with organizational and political intelligence, confidence, situational sensitivity and directness. 
 
✓ Analytical and pragmatic decision-maker: results-obsessed focus on streamlining to create greater efficiencies. Consistently 
recognized for sound judgment and thorough analysis of problems while moving quickly to implement the most effective 
solutions. 
 
✓ Inspiring and motivating leadership style: demonstrates infectious energy that motivates teams and key stakeholders to 
unite and achieve a common vision. 
 
HIGHLIGHTS OF EXPERTISE 
▪ Executive Leadership & Facilitation 
▪ Strategic Planning 
▪ Operations 
▪ Cross-Functional Teaming 
▪ Critical Thinking/Analysis 
▪ Efficiency Identification 
▪ Project Management/Execution 
▪ Executive Communications 
▪ Transformations 
▪ Policy and Procedure Review 
▪ Sales & Business Development 
▪ Change Management 
 
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 
VILLAGE OF SOUTHAMPTON, NY  
2022-PRESENT 
MAYOR  
2023-PRESENT 
TRUSTEE  
2022-2023 
 
U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 
2017 – 2021 
CHIEF OF STAFF  
2020 - 2021 
As deputy to the Administrator, oversaw and managed the agency and its ~11,000 employees and contractors to deliver products 
and services for America’s small businesses coordinating all functions including legal, finance, human capital, technology and field 
operations to provide financial assistance, government contracting, entrepreneurial development and disaster assistance.  
Key contributions: 
• 
Led transformation the agency to implement Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) in one week of it becoming law in the Cares 
Act.  Provided over 5.2 million small businesses and non-profits with almost $550B in forgivable loans within ten-month 
timeframe during pandemic. Effort required immediate implementation of enhanced IT systems and $90M SaaS solution. 
• 
Effectively communicated frequently with key stakeholders including lenders, trade associations, government agencies and 
members of the US House and US Senate. 
• 
Increased lender participation from approximately 1,500 to almost 5,500, which included nationwide banks, regional banks, 
community banks, credit unions, fintechs, community development financial institutions, certified development companies, 
minority depository institutions and others. 
 
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, HEAD OF OFFICE OF CAPITAL ACCESS  
2017 - 2021 
The Office of Capital Access guarantees loans made by banks and other lending partners to small businesses that cannot otherwise 
obtain financing on reasonable terms. As the head of this office, managed $130B portfolio of direct and guaranteed loans, nine 
operation centers and staff of ~560 employees, including loan processors. Established policy, ran operations and oversaw risk 
management. 
Key contributions: 
• 
Delivered approximately $30 billion in loans annually to small businesses; improved loan processing time by 50% while also 
improving customer service. Also promoted lending in rural areas and identified Opportunity Zones. 
Pla Appx 3305
Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG     Document 163-14     Filed 05/21/25     Page 14 of 15

WILLIAM M. MANGER, JR. 
page 2 
631-255-2288 ▪ wmmanger@gmail.com ▪ New York, NY 
• 
Successfully testified before Congress 7 times; spoke to many foreign delegations and international conferences. 
Represented the Administrator on US Treasury’s CDFI Board and served on the executive board that approved approximately 
80 SBIC licenses. 
 
BROCK CAPITAL GROUP, LLC 
2009 – 2017  
MANAGING DIRECTOR  
2021-PRESENT  
As a key member of the boutique investment bank and consulting firm, supervised the firm’s day-to-day operations and coordinated 
and managed all advising, consulting and banking assignments with CalPERS.  
Key contributions: 
• 
Negotiated terms, structured, marketed and raised capital for real estate private placement deal that invested in single 
family homes in suburban NY and CT.  
• 
Chaired the Professional Operations Committee which managed deal flow. 
 
U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 
2005 – 2009 
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, HEAD OF OFFICE OF FIELD OPERATIONS  
2007 – 2009 
Responsible for operational management of the agency’s operations nationwide, managing ~1000 employees in 68 offices across 
10 regions. Provided policy guidance and set annual metrics. Fully integrated the field with program offices in headquarters. Drove 
customer service focus and expansion in underserved markets. 
 
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, HEAD OF OFFICE OF ENTREPRENEURIAL DEVELOPMENT (A)  
2008 
Administered $115M in grants to provide counseling and training to small business entrepreneurs. Oversaw Small Business 
Development Centers and Women’s Business Centers that provide technical and special assistance to small business. 
 
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR  
2005 – 2007 
Responsible for the delivery of the agency’s financial assistance, management counseling, business development and minority 
enterprise development activities in New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. Managed a staff of 100 
employees in five district offices throughout the region. Member of the Agency’s Management Board responsible for establishing 
policy. 
BILL MANGER FOR CONGRESS 
2003 – 2004  
CANDIDATE  
Ran for U.S. Congress in New York-1 district (Eastern Suffolk County LI). Responsible for raising over $1 million dollars for campaign. 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 
2001 – 2003  
SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR TO THE MARITIME ADMINISTRATOR  
Responsible for coordinating and initiating policy proposals. Directly involved with the maritime response to 9/11. Reviewed and 
commented on all substantive documents including policy, legislation, budget and briefings for the Secretary and White House. 
VILLAGE OF SOUTHAMPTON  
1997 – 2001  
TRUSTEE  
Twice elected member of five-person executive board, involved with all aspects of managing the municipality including legislation, 
labor negotiations, emergency services, budgeting, taxation and grants.  
 
THE ZANETT SECURITIES CORPORATION/ZANETT CAPITAL, INC.  
1996 – 1999  
ASSOCIATE - VICE PRESIDENT 
Sourced potential companies to directly invest in; met with CEOs and CFOs to negotiate private placement terms. 
 
 
EDUCATION AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 
EDUCATION:  
Master of Business Administrative in Finance, Columbia Business School 
Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, Trinity College 
 
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: 
• 
Have served for over twenty-five years on the board of the Riot Relief Fund  
which was created after the Civil War riots to provide compensation to spouses  
and children of policemen and firemen killed in the line of duty 
• 
Have travelled to 48 states and six continents 
Pla Appx 3306
Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG     Document 163-14     Filed 05/21/25     Page 15 of 15

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.paed.589575.163.14.pdf

Size

1,251,022 bytes

SHA-256

3712c312c3c71c73c8306b6a0cbd3fe37ac90638a8d7e38fa1127b2717180c4b

Our copy

gov.uscourts.paed.589575.163.14.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)