bond “for the protection of all persons supplying labor and material” under the contract. 40 U.S.C. § 3131(b)(2). The universe of claimants who may obtain relief upon a payment bond is therefore limited to those who furnish labor or materials. Clifford F. MacEvoy Co. v. United States, 322 U.S. 102, 107-08, 64 S.Ct. 890, 88 L.Ed. 1163 (1944). Loans for payments to laborers or suppliers, however, do not themselves constitute labor or material. Bill Curphy Co. v. Elliott, 207 F.2d 103, 109 (5th Cir.1953). A lender of funds for such payments therefore is not a proper claimant under a Miller Act payment bond. Id.; 8 Government Contracts: Law, Administration & Procedures § 49A.20[14] (Matthew Bender 2013); see also Bank of Auburn v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 295 F.2d 641, 642 (5th Cir.1961) (<HOLDING>); United States ex rel. Fid. Nat’l Bank v.
holding that a plaintiffs lack of knowledge regarding the number of affected persons does not bar class certification when defendant has the means to identify those persons at will holding that payment bond protecting suppliers of labor and material does not extend to a bank which might lend money for the purpose of paying for such work and materials holding that bond protecting those persons who do work or furnish materials did not protect bank lending money to contractor for payment to those persons holding that a prosecutor has an obligation to protect not only the public interest but the innocent and to safeguard the rights guaranteed to all persons including those who may be guilty holding that persons supplying labor or materials to a subcontractor on a public works project may seek reimbursement under a statutory payment bond provided by the general contractor