Case docket
In re: Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Agent Fees Litigation, MDL No. 2950
In re: Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Agent Fees Litigation — 2 court filings in the archive, mostly from U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, filed between May 22, 2020 and August 5, 2020.
Case facts
| Court | U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (1 filing); United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (1 filing) |
|---|---|
| Filings | 2 public filings |
| Filed | 2020-05-22 – 2020-08-05 |
| Document types | motion (1), order (1) |
| Original PDFs | 2 of 2 |
Case summary
This page holds two filings from the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in MDL No. 2950. On May 22, 2020 Alliant CPA Group LLC, plaintiff in Alliant CPA Group LLC v. Bank of America Corp., N.D. Ga. No. 1:20-cv-02026-LMM, moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to transfer twelve pending cases to the Northern District of Georgia, or in the alternative to the District of Arizona, for coordinated or consolidated proceedings. The Panel's order of August 5, 2020 records that the litigation then consisted of 12 actions in 10 districts with 50 related actions in 16 more, that the defendants are over a hundred PPP lenders, and that all responding defendants except Chase and Wells Fargo opposed centralization. The Panel denied the motion.
Case at a glance
| Parties | Movant: Alliant CPA Group LLC. Responding defendants: over a hundred lenders authorized to make PPP loans, including community and regional banks and nationwide banks such as Chase, Bank of America and Wells Fargo |
|---|---|
| Court and docket | U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, MDL No. 2950; the motion is Document 1 filed May 22, 2020 and the order is Document 356 filed August 5, 2020 |
| Program | Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) |
| Claims | As described by the Panel, the actions allege that lenders across the banking industry failed to pay legally mandated "agent fees" owed to agents who assisted small businesses in applying for approved PPP loans |
| Disposition or status | Transfer denied. The Panel ordered that the motion for centralization of the actions listed on Schedule A is denied |
| Status checked | 2026-09-23 · against DOJ press releases through 2026-09-22; court docket not yet read |
What did the movant ask for?
An order under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and JPML Rule 6.2 consolidating the twelve pending cases, and any tag-along cases, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia before Judge Leigh Martin May, or in the alternative in the District of Arizona before Judge Diane Humetewa.
Why did the Panel deny transfer?
It found the vast majority of defendants are named in only one action, indicating a lack of common questions of fact, and held that common legal questions — here, whether agents have a legal entitlement to agent fees under the CARES Act or implementing regulations — do not satisfy Section 1407's requirement of common factual questions. It also noted that informal coordination appears practicable, since four groups of plaintiffs' counsel represent plaintiffs in 50 of the 62 actions and all actions are in their infancy.
What did the defendants want?
All responding defendants except Chase and Wells Fargo opposed centralization, and most asked that any MDL, if ordered over their objections, be lender-specific. Chase opposed industry-wide centralization but supported a Chase-specific MDL.
Summary written from the documents on this page; every sentence is sourced.
Filings
2 public filings from this case, in filing-date order.
Court, dates and docket numbers are as recorded on the filings.