Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

13-508 - Willcox v. Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
13-508 - Willcox v. Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC et al
December 23, 2014
PDF | More
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS re: 62. Signed by JUDGE ALAN C KAY on 12/23/2014. Written Order follows hearing held 12/15/2014 on Defendant Lloyds Bank PLC's Motion to Dismiss the Claims Asserted in the Second Amended Complaint (motion, doc 62). Minutes of hearing: doc. no. 71. (afc)CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
November 12, 2015
PDF | More
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION re 156 - Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE RICHARD L. PUGLISI on 11/12/2015. "In accordance with the foregoing, the Court FINDS AND RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: (1) The Court CERTIFIES the instant case as a class action; (2) The Court CERTIFIES the following class: All persons and entities who entered prior to August 2009 into an IMS loan with Lloyds that contained a Hong Kong choice-of-law provision and an interest rate provision based upon Cost of Funds and who are, or were at any time during entering into such an IMS loan, residents or citizens of the State of Hawaii, or owners of property in Hawaii that was mortgaged to secure any such IMS loan; (3) The Court APPOINTS Bradley Willcox as the class representative; (4) The Court APPOINTS Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing and Steptoe & Johnson LLP as class counsel; (5) The Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer no later than 30 days after the district court acts on this Findings and Recommendation to agree on: the proposed notice to potential class members pursuant to Rule 23(d)(2) and the most practicable procedure under the circumstances to provide notice of the instant case to those class members. The proposed notice to the class and the proposed distribution plan shall be submitted for the Court's approval no later than 45 days after the district court acts on this Findings and Recommendation; and (6) The Court DENIES the remaining relief requested in Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification." (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
January 8, 2016
PDF | More
ORDER ADOPTING IN PART, REJECTING IN PART, AND MODIFYING IN PART THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION re 317, 332 - Signed by JUDGE ALAN C KAY on 1/8/2016. "For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS in part, REJECTS in part, and MODIFIES in part the F&R. The Court REJECTS the F&R's finding that Plaintiffs have demonstrated the superiority of class litigation under Rule 23(b)(3) as to the class defined therein. However, the Court will certify the class as defined therein with the modification that the class shall be limited to plaintiffs of U.S. and Canadian citizenship. The remainder of the F&R is ADOPTED, over Lloyd's objections." (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
February 11, 2016
PDF | More
partial summary judgment to Plaintiffs on Count II, and (4) DENIES Plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief. Regarding its second and third holdings, the Court finds that the Cost of Funds provision in the facility agreements does not prescribe a specific methodology for calculating the Cost of Funds component of the IMS loans' interest rate; does not specifically require the Cost of Funds component to track 3-month LIBOR; and does not specifically require Lloyds to fund Plaintiffs' loans with short-term money. However, the agreements do allow Lloyds to pass on liquidity costs and liquidity requirements to borrowers. Additionally, the Cost of Funds provision does not specifically restrict Lloyds from altering iIES Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Their and the Putative Class's Claim for Breach of Contract on Count I; (2) GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Lloyds' Motion for Summary Judgment; (3) sua sponte GRANTSORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THEIR AND THE PUTATIVE CLASS'S CLAIM FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT ON COUNT I, DENYING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR DECLATORY RELIEF, GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND SUA SPONTE GRANTING PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO PLAINTIFFS ON COUNT II re 249, 251 - Signed by JUDGE ALAN C KAY on 2/11/2016. "For the foregoing reasons, the Court: (1) DENts cost calculation. However, the Court also finds an implied term in the agreements which limits Lloyds' discretion to alter interest rates. That implied term requires Lloyds, when altering interest rates, to do so in a manner that comports with purely commercial considerations, including whether it is in financial difficulty because it is obliged to pay higher rates on interest to the money market; however, Lloyds must refrain from acting dishonestly, for an improper purpose, capriciously, or arbitrarily, or in a manner so unreasonable that no reasonable lender would do the same (the Nash standard). The Court otherwise DENIES both parties' motions for summary judgment, as issues of material fact regarding Lloyds' alleged breach of the express and implied terms of the facility agreements remain." (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
March 7, 2016
PDF | More
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS, RULE 23(F) PETITION, AND ANY RESULTING APPEAL AND VACATING TRIAL DATE re 402 - Signed by JUDGE ALAN C KAY on 3/7/2016. "For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Lloyds' Motion to Stay, and this case is STAYED as to all matters until the Ninth Circuit rules on Lloyds' Rule 23(f) Petition. Accordingly, the Court VACATES the currently scheduled trial date. In the event the Ninth Circuit denies the Petition, the Court will issue an order setting forth dates for the trial and final pretrial conference, and other deadlines. Should the Ninth Circuit grant the Petition, the case will be stayed until further ruling by the Ninth Circuit regarding the merits of the composition of the class." "In light of this Order, Plaintiffs' Fourth Ex Parte Motion to Modify the Court's Rule 16 Scheduling Order before Magistrate Judge Puglisi should be stayed until the Ninth Circuit rules on Lloyds' Rule 23(f) Petition and, depending on the Ninth Circuit's ruling, this Court either sets a new trial date (and final pretrial conference date and other deadlines) or stays the case pending the Ninth Circuit's further consideration of the merits of Lloyds' Petition regarding the appropriate constitution of the class." re 422, 178 Motion terminated: 402 MOTION to Stay [Lloyds TSB Bank PLC's Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Resolution of Dispositive Motions, Rule 23(F) Petition, and Any Resulting Appeal] filed by Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC. Case stayed. (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
August 15, 2016
PDF | More
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO PRESENT A TRIAL PLAN re 444 - Signed by JUDGE ALAN C KAY on 8/15/2016. (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
September 16, 2016
PDF | More
ORDER FINDING PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL - Signed by JUDGE ALAN C KAY on 9/16/2016. (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
December 14, 2016
PDF | More
ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING DEFENDANT'S OFFER OF COMPROMISE, PRELIMINARILY APPROVING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO APPROVE AND ENTER JUDGMENT, PRELIMINARILY APPROVING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS, AND PRELIMINARILY APPROVING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR INCENTIVE AWARD FOR CLASS REPRESENTATIVE re 539, 547, 556 - Signed by JUDGE ALAN C. KAY on 12/14/2016. (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
February 6, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED CY PRES REMEDY AND DIRECTING REVERSION OF UNCLAIMED FUNDS TO DEFENDANT re 572 - Signed by JUDGE ALAN C. KAY on 2/6/2017. (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry