38.  On or about April 6, 2020, Mr. Kull submitted a complete, thorough, and timely  application to DEFENDANT BANK to obtain a PPP loan. In doing so, Plaintiff relied on the  representations of the of DEFENDANT BANK, whose written communications made it clear to  Plaintiff as a consumer that PPP applications would be processed in a “first-come, first-served  queue” and that they were focusing their efforts on “small businesses.” Knowing he could only  receive one PPP loan, and knowing that DEFENDANT BANK did not accept applications from  businesses that had applied for PPP loans with any other financial institution, Plaintiff believed  that DEFENDANT BANK would be his best choice for obtaining funding under the PPP.   39.  After submitting the PPP loan application, Plaintiff waited to get funded. While  Plaintiff waited to get funded, Mr. Kull made strategic business decisions, invested his personal  finances in his business, made personnel decisions, and took other steps in reliance on  DEFENDANT BANK’s representations that their lending would be focused on businesses with  under 50 employees and would be “first-come, first served.”   40.  On information and belief, DEFENDANT BANK did not focus their lending  efforts on businesses with under 50 employees and did not process the applications in a “first- come, first-served” manner. DEFENDANT BANK did not follow the SBA Regulations or the  intent of The Senate and Congress in distributing the PPP funds. Instead, DEFENDANT BANK  moved high-dollar applications from large- and mid-sized companies to the “front of the line” in  order to maximize their origination fees on these Federally backed loans at taxpayer expense.  DEFENDANT BANK enriched themselves at the expense of Plaintiff and the putative class of  54.  Plaintiff hereby restates, realleges, and incorporates by reference all foregoing  paragraphs.   55.  New York prohibits “deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business,  trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state ....” N. Y. Gen. Bus. Law §  349(a).   56.  An individual “injured by reason of any violation of this section may bring an action  in his own name to enjoin such unlawful act or practice, an action to recover his actual damages  or fifty dollars, whichever is greater, or both such actions.” N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349(h).   57.  DEFENDANT BANK committed the above-described acts willfully and/or  knowingly.   58.  DEFENDANT BANK’s wrongful and deceptive acts have caused financial injury  and economic damages to Plaintiff and Class Members and unless enjoined, will cause further  irreparable injury.   60.  As a direct and proximate result of the above violations of § 349 of the General  Business Law, Plaintiff and class members have suffered compensable harm and are entitled to  preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, and to recover actual damages, costs and attorney’s  fees.  61.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the preceding  paragraphs and further alleges as follows.   62.  Unjust enrichment is a quasi-contract claim designed to prevent “a person [from]  enrich[ing] himself unjustly at the expense of another.” IDT Corp. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter  & Co., 12 N.Y.3d 132, 879 N.Y.S.2d 355, 907 N.E.2d 268, 274 (2009). To prevail on a claim for  unjust enrichment in New York, a plaintiff must establish 1) that the defendant benefitted; 2) at  the plaintiff's expense; and 3) that equity and good conscience require restitution.” Kaye v.  Grossman, 202 F.3d 611, 616 (2d Cir.2000).   64.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set  forth herein.   65.  To state a claim for Fraudulent Concealment, a plaintiff must allege that the  defendant had a duty to disclose material information and failed to do so, that the omission was  intentional so as to defraud or mislead the plaintiff, that the plaintiff relied on the omission and  that the plaintiff suffered damages.   66.  Due to the nature of the transaction and contemplated contract between them,  Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff and the Class to reasonably disclose facts material to that  transaction and to not hide or obscure facts material to that transaction.   68.  At all relevant times, Defendants actively concealed those material facts from the  public and their PPP loan applicants, by intentionally omitting to disclose such facts and by  intentionally misleading the Plaintiff and Class with affirmative statements that were not true.   69.  Even if Defendants made some partial representations, Defendants still made  efforts to suppress material facts and did not fully disclose and contextualize the material facts  known only to them.   70.  Plaintiff and the Class reasonably relied on Defendants’ representations in choosing  to apply for a PPP loan with DEFENDANT BANK. As a direct result of Defendants’ fraudulent  concealment of facts material to the PPP loan application transaction, Plaintiff and the Class were  induced to apply with Defendants and as a proximate result suffered economic and financial harm  On Behalf of The Class Against All Defendants  (Fraudulent Concealment)   On Behalf of The Class Against All Defendants  (Violation Of New York State General Business Law §§ 349-350 – Deceptive and  Misleading Business Practices)   On Behalf of The Class Against All Defendants  (Unjust Enrichment)  