Willcox v. Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC, 1:13-cv-00508

IMS loans are currency-switching mortgage loans issued worldwide, including Hawaii and California borrowers.
Plaintiffs allege defendant arbitrarily increased the Cost of Funds, raising IMS interest rates when Yen appreciated.
Loans share a common Cost of Funds language and a common method of calculating that component.
Hong Kong law governs the facility agreements; some loans contain Singapore choice-of-law provisions, limiting commonality to Hong Kong provisions.
Plaintiffs seek class certification for Hawaii-resident borrowers with Hong Kong choice-of-law, entered before Aug 2009.
Willcox is the named representative; Dominicks’ claims involve multiple alleged breaches, affecting typicality analysis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the class satisfies Rule 23(a) prerequisites	Willcox argues numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy are met	Lack of commonality due to Singapore-law loans; individualized defenses	Numerosity satisfied; commonality satisfied for HK-law subset; remaining elements delegated to Rule 23(b) analysis
Whether common questions predominate under Rule 23(b)(3)	Common issues about Cost of Funds and LTP pass-through are central	Damages vary by borrower; Singapore HK-law divergence may destroy cohesion	Predominance satisfied for HK-law subset; damages method common; class certification granted in part
Whether the class is superior under Rule 23(b)(3)	Group litigation is more efficient given common issues	Foreign-class-member manageability may hinder certification	Superiority satisfied; class action appropriate for the proposed HK-law subset
Whether claims are typical and adequately represented by Willcox	Willcox’s and Dominicks’ claims arise from identical Cost of Funds terms	Dominicks’ broader breaches undermine typicality and adequacy	Typicality satisfied for Willcox; Dominicks not typical; Willcox remains adequate representative
Whether the Dominicks’ conduct taints class representation	Dominicks’ conduct does not defeat common issues	Their breaches create unique defenses	Dominicks’ claims not typical; Willcox alone certified as representative

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (commonality requires a common core of salient facts for classwide resolution)
Gen. Tel. Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1982) (rigorous analysis for Fed. Rule 23(a) prerequisites)
Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) (common questions and class-wide proof may suffice for predominance)
Investors Comp. Scheme Ltd. v. West Bromwich Bldg. Soc’y, 1 WLR 896 (UK 1998) (objective contract interpretation; reasonable person standard)
Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497 (9th Cir. 1992) (typicality not defeated by unique defenses if common claims prevail)