Starr International Company, Inc., on Its Behalf and on Behalf of a Class of Others Similarly Situated v. United States, 109 Fed. Cl. 628

Starr International sued the United States alleging two government actions—the Credit Agreement of Sept. 22, 2008 and the June 30, 2009 reverse stock split—could constitute a taking or illegal exaction of shareholders’ property without just compensation.
The Court previously held Starr sufficiently pled two government actions requiring compensation but did not rule on merits.
Starr moved to certify two classes under Rule 23: a Credit Agreement Class and a Stock Split Class, plus appointment of class counsel.
The Government opposed certification, arguing Rule 23’s requirements (typicality, commonality, adequacy) were not satisfied.
The Court held Starr’s proposed two-class structure and the common questions presented were suitable for class-wide resolution and granted certification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Commonality satisfaction for both classes	Starr’s claims share a common core: the same government actions affect all class members.	Gen. commonality is lacking due to individualized issues and damages, and multiple actions could dilute uniformity.	Commonality satisfied for both classes.
Typicality of named plaintiff for each class	Starr’s claims arise from the same actions and legal theories as the class members.	Differences in interests could undermine typicality across actions and voting rights.	Typicality satisfied for both classes.
Adequacy of representation and class counsel	Class counsel is qualified; intra-class interests are aligned; no lurking conflicts between classes.	Conflicts could exist between the two classes and between direct and derivative claims, potentially undermining adequacy.	Adequacy satisfied; conflicts deemed premature and not showing antagonistic interests within or between classes.
Superiority of class action	Class treatment will be economical given tens of thousands of dispersed shareholders and shared defenses and law.	No sufficient efficiencies demonstrated beyond prejudicing individual claims.	Superiority satisfied; class action is the superior method.

Geneva Rock Prods., Inc. v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 778 (2011) (one core common question can bind class-wide resolution)
Singleton v. United States, 92 Fed. Cl. 78 (2010) (class action efficiency and commonality considerations)
Barnes v. United States, 68 Fed. Cl. 492 (2005) (five-element framework for certification and liberal construction in favor of certification)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (commonality requires a common contention capable of classwide resolution)
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (adequacy and manageability considerations in class actions)
King v. United States, 84 Fed. Cl. 120 (2009) (low threshold for commonality in class actions)
Douglas R. Bigelow Trust v. United States, 97 Fed. Cl. 674 (2011) (commonality satisfied where core legal question is shared)