21.  The spread of COVID-19 was declared a pandemic by the World Health  Organization (“WHO”) on March 11, 2020.    51.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated  as a nationwide Class, defined as follows:   All persons and businesses who served as an agent in relation to, and  provided assistance to a client in relation to, the preparation and/or  submission of a client’s PPP loan application to Pacific Premier  Bank which resulted in a loan being funded under the PPP.Plaintiff  further brings this action on behalf of a subclass of individuals  defined as follows:   California Subclass.  All persons and businesses in California who  served as an agent in relation to, and provided assistance to a client  in relation to, the preparation and/or submission of a client’s PPP  loan application to Pacific Premier Bank which resulted in a loan  being funded under the PPP.   61.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference each preceding and succeeding paragraph  as though fully set forth at length herein.     62.  Plaintiff and the Class represent individuals who are “agents” as defined by  the SBA regulations for the PPP.      63.  Plaintiff and the putative Class have assisted clients with the process of  preparing applications, and applying for, PPP loan funds.  Defendants, despite the clear  command of the SBA’s PPP regulations, have refused to make these payments.  An  actual controversy has arisen between Plaintiff and the Class, on one hand, and  Defendants on the other, wherein Defendants deny by their refusal to pay that they are  obligated to pay Plaintiff’s and the Class’s “agent” fees pursuant to PPP regulations.     65.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference each preceding and succeeding paragraph  as though fully set forth at length herein.     66.  Based on information and belief, Defendants entered into an agreement with  the SBA in connection with the loans funded in the PPP.    67.  The agreements required that Defendants would adhere to all PPP rules and  regulations and incorporate these requirements by reference.  Defendants and the SBA  understood that agents involved in the preparation and submission of PPP loan  applications would need to be compensated.    68.  The SBA’s PPP regulations specifically require that PPP lenders pay the fees  of any “agent” that assists with the PPP loan application process, within limits.     69.  Defendants understood that Plaintiff and the Class were intended  beneficiaries in this agreement.  Nevertheless, Defendants have refused to live up to their  end of the bargain, and have uniformly refused to pay agent fees to Plaintiff and the  Class.    71.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference each preceding and succeeding paragraph  as though fully set forth at length herein.    72.  Pursuant to California Business & Professions Code § 17200, “any unlawful,  unfair…business act or practice” is prohibited in the State of California.  This statute  creates a private right of action based on any unlawful or unfair act committed in the  course of business, particularly where it provides the unlawful actor with an unfair  business advantage.  Local, state and/or federal law can serve as the basis for an  “unlawful…business act or practice[.]”    73.  The SBA’s PPP regulations specifically provide that “lenders” who provide  loans under the program will be responsible for paying “agent” fees, within prescribed  limits.    74.  Defendants have uniformly refused to pay these fees to Plaintiff and the  Class.  As a result, Defendants have engaged in unlawful conduct that has cost Plaintiff  and the Class millions of dollars in fees, collectively.   75.  Defendants have also engaged in “unfair” business practice through this  conduct, as well as set forth above.     76.  As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing acts and practices,  Defendants have received, or will receive, income, profits, and other benefits, which they  would not have received if they had not engaged in the violations of Section 17200  described in this Complaint.    78.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference each preceding and succeeding paragraph  as though fully set forth at length herein.    79.  Unjust enrichment, or restitution, may be alleged where a Defendant  unjustly obtains and retains a benefit to the Plaintiff’s detriment, where such retention  violates fundamental principles of equity, justice, and good conscience.     80.  Here, Defendants have obtained millions of dollars in benefits in the form of  PPP loan origination fees.  A portion of those fees were to be paid to agents, like and  including Plaintiff, who assisted in their clients’ PPP loan applications.  But Defendants  are refusing to pay those fees, in contravention of PPP regulations.    81.  Principles of justice, equity, and good conscience demand that Defendants  not be allowed to retain these agent fees.  Defendants have fallen short in their duties as  lenders, and during a crisis no less.  As a result, Plaintiff and the putative Class have been  unable to obtain the agent fees due to them.    82.  Accordingly, Defendants must disgorge the portion of any and all PPP  origination fees that they have retained to the extent they are due to Plaintiff and the  putative Class in their capacities as agents.   83.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference each preceding and succeeding paragraph  as though fully set forth at length herein.    COMPETITION LAW  (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.)  