Background
Houston law firm Ramey, L.L.P., formerly known as Ramey & Schwaller, L.L.P., received a Paycheck Protection Program loan from Amegy Bank during the COVID-19 pandemic. After learning of a pending criminal complaint against firm owner William P. Ramey III, the bank concluded that he had falsely answered the application’s criminal-history question, accelerated the loan, and froze the firm’s accounts. The Small Business Administration subsequently found the firm ineligible for PPP loans and forgiveness. The Fifth Circuit upheld the bank’s and SBA’s actions in a separate proceeding.
In this action, Ramey sought judicial review of the SBA’s denial of its applications for a first-draw PPP loan, a second-draw loan, and loan forgiveness, as well as monetary damages. The district court dismissed the claims. After a limited remand directing the district court to explain its reasoning, the court entered a written order stating its grounds, and the parties submitted supplemental appellate briefs.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal. Its unpublished per curiam opinion stated that, after reviewing the record, the briefing, and the district court’s written explanation, the panel agreed with the district court for substantially the reasons that court had provided.
The panel rejected Ramey’s effort to overturn the judgment, including its arguments that the district court had read the prior Fifth Circuit decision too broadly and that the SBA had inadequately considered relevant factors when denying loan forgiveness. The opinion did not independently elaborate on those issues or separately analyze whether dismissal rested on lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, or both.
Key Takeaways
- The Fifth Circuit left intact the dismissal of Ramey’s claims challenging the SBA’s PPP-loan and loan-forgiveness determinations.
- The panel relied substantially on the district court’s post-remand written statement of reasons rather than providing an extended independent analysis.
- The decision is an unpublished per curiam opinion and does not revisit the merits of the circuit’s earlier ruling concerning the firm’s PPP eligibility.
Why It Matters
The decision ends this appeal without expanding Fifth Circuit doctrine governing PPP eligibility or loan forgiveness. Its practical significance lies chiefly in preserving the district court’s dismissal and the consequences of the circuit’s earlier decision involving the same firm and loan.