As the COVID-19 pandemic took hold in early 2020, Congress established the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). Several businesses applied for and received PPP loan approval from Prestamos CDFI, LLC (Prestamos). However, due to individual bank-related issues, the loan funds were returned to Prestamos, leaving the businesses without the promised financial assistance. Consequently, these businesses initiated a class action lawsuit against Prestamos, alleging breach of contract. They contend that Prestamos failed to fulfill its funding obligations, falsely recorded the loans as disbursed, held them liable for repayment, and hindered their ability to secure alternative funding.

Plaintiffs moved for class certification on September 6, 2024. They believe that class certification is appropriate because liability for each Plaintiff rises and falls with the same contract and PPP regulations.

Prestamos filed a motion to exclude the expert reports of William Briggs, William Manger, and Steven Feinstein. According to Prestamos, none of the expert reports satisfy Daubert because they improperly offered legal conclusions. And even if the experts can make such conclusions, Prestamos argued that Briggs and Manger are not qualified and that Feinstein did not use an accepted methodology. Plaintiffs opposed excluding the three reports.

Business Administration Expert Witnesses

William Briggs operates a consulting firm based in Austin, Texas. From November 2017 to January 2021, he served in multiple roles at the United States Small Business Administration (SBA). Prior to his appointment at the United States Small Business Administration, he was employed in multiple positions in and out of public service advising clients, companies, and officials.

Get the full story on challenges to William Briggs’ expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.

William Manger 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, he was Chief of Staff of the SBA from March 2020 to January 2021, during which he oversaw and led the SBA’s implementation of the Paycheck Protection Program (the “PPP”). In that role, he 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.

Want to know more about the challenges William Manger has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

Economics Expert Witness

Steven Feinstein is Associate Professor of Finance at Babson College, and the founder and president of Crowninshield Financial Research, Inc., a financial economics consulting firm.

He holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Yale University, a Master of Philosophy degree in Economics from Yale University, a Master of Arts degree in Economics from Yale University, and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics from Pomona College. He also holds the Chartered Financial Analyst (“CFA”) designation, granted by the CFA Institute.

Discover more cases with Steven Feinstein as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report

Discussion by the Court

In 2023, the Northern District of Texas decided Greathouse v. Capital Plus Financial, LLC, 2023 WL 5746927 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 6, 2023). That case is virtually identical to this one. In both cases, borrowers brought a class action suit against a private lender alleging that the lender failed to fund their approved PPP loans in breach of the standard contracts.

In both cases, Plaintiffs alleged similar harms—responsibility to repay unfunded loans and inability to get loans from other lenders. Plaintiffs also had the same counsel and experts in both these cases. Both cases consisted of two motions—one to exclude the expert reports and another to certify the proposed classes. And, in both cases, the result will be the same: the expert reports will only be considered for their background opinions on the PPP and the proposed classes will not be certified because of the factual differences between Plaintiffs’ loan processes.

Prestamos likely objects most strongly to the three experts offering improper legal opinions that aim to differentiate this case from Greathouse and interpret PPP regulations.

Analysis

The Court excluded the opinions explaining the differences between this case and Greathouse. The experts’ opinions interpreting the PPP regulations were also be excluded because they provided legal conclusions on whether Prestamos complied with its regulatory duties under the PPP.

Beyond distinguishing this case from Greathouse and interpreting the PPP regulations, the Court noted that all three experts gave background information on the CARES Act, the PPP, and the relevant regulations.

Moreover, both Briggs and Manger have extensive experience serving in multiple roles in the SBA and Feinstein has significant knowledge of financial markets, investments, and relevant regulations.

Because Briggs, Manger, and Feinstein are qualified and their background opinions are reliable and fit with the main issue in the case, the opinions satisfy Daubert.

Held

The Court granted in part and denied in part Prestamos’s motion to exclude the expert reports of William Briggs, William Manger, and Steven Feinstein while the Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was denied.

Key Takeaway:

The common question in this case asks whether Plaintiffs’ PPP loans should ever have been canceled. To answer this question, the Court needs to understand the PPP and the procedure of the loan process. The experts’ background opinions supply some of this knowledge by laying out basic information about the relevant statute and regulations.

Case Details:

Case Caption:	Marshall v. Prestamos Cdfi, LLC Chicanos Por LA CaUSA, Inc.
Docket Number:	5:21cv4337
Court Name:	United States District Court, Pennsylvania Eastern
Order Date:	April 29, 2025

Category: Business Administration Expert Witness

Experts’ Opinions Interpreting the PPP Regulations Were Excluded

Experts’ Opinions Interpreting the PPP Regulations Were Excluded