IN RE: Texas International Securities Litigation

Case MDL No. 604 Document 12 Filed 06/01/15 Page 1 of 2
SSGAL PRL ER a
: DOCKET NO. 604 FULT LTE
8 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION15 13 188kIN RE TEXAS INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES LITIGATION TRINATY Me
PA] hike, EE	14° [ARE FE.
TRANSFER ORDER CLERK OF itr
" This litigation consists of ten actions pending in three districts as follows: five
actions in the Western District of Oklahoma, four actions in the District of New Jersey,
and one action in the Eastern District of New York. Presently before the Panel is a
motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, by the plaintiffs in the ten actions to centralize
the actions in the District of New Jersey for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings. No responding party has opposed centralization. Twenty-five defendants
named in the various actlons, however, support selection of the Western District of
Oklahoma rather than the District of New Jersey as transferee forum.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, the Panel finds that these ten
actions involve common questions of fact and that centralization under 28 U.S.C. §1407 in
the Western District of Oklahoma will best serve the convenlence of the parties and
witnesses and promote the Just and efficlent conduct of the litigation. All the actions
before the Panel involve alleged violations of securities laws arising from alleged
misstatements of material information concerning Texas International Company's proven oil
and gas reserves. Moreover, overlapping class certifications have been sought in the ten
actions. Centralization under Section 1407 is thus necessary in order to eliminate
duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the resources
of the parties, thelr counsel and the judiciary.
® Movants favor selection of the District of New Jersey as transferee forum because,- inter alia, 1) pending in that district are three purportedly related actions (not
: included by movants in their Section 1407 motion) brought against a brokerage firm that
is not a party to the ten actions before the Panel; and 2) the judgs wussigned the New
Jersey actions in this docket has already gained familiarity with the issues in this
litigation as a result of presiding over the three purportedly related New Jersey
actions. While the District of New Jersey may be an acceptable forum, on balance we are
persuaded that the Western District of Oklahoma is the appropriate forum for this
litigation. We note that 1) most of Texas International's records and relevant employees
are located at its Oklahoma City corporate headquarters; 2) the defendant accounting
firm's records and witnesses are at its Oklahoma City office; 3) individual defendants
all reside in or around Oklahoma City; 4) the defendant energy consultants have offices
and records in Oklahama; 5) the operative facts alleged in the complaints occurred for
the most part in Oklahoma and, to a lesser degree, in Texas and Louisiana; and 6) five of
the ten actions in this docket are already pending in the Western District of Oklahoma.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, the actions listed on the
attached Schedule A and pending in districts outside the Western District of Oklahoma be,
and the same hereby are, transferred to the Western District of Oklahoma and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable David L. Russell for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions pending in that district and listed on
Schedule A.
® FOR THE PANEL:
Andrew A, Caff
Chairman

. Case MDL No. 604 Document 12 Filed 06/01/15 Page 2 of 2
SCHEDULE A @
MDL-604 -- In re Texas International Securities Litigation
Western District of Oklahoma
Herbert Silverberg v. Texas International Co., et al., C.A. No. Civ-84-366-R
Bruce H. Tuchman v. Texas International Co., et al., C.A. No. Civ-84-386-R
Alphonse J. Napolitano v. Texas International Co., et al., C.A. No. Civ-84-534-R
Edward I. Becker v. Texas International Co., et al., C.A. No. Civ-84-571-E
Stanley Hershfang, et al. v. Texas International Co., et al., C.A. No. Civ-84~601-R
Eastern District of New York
Steven H. Weiss v. Robert C. Gist, et al., C.A. No. 84-0816
District of New Jersey
H. Dewwy Yesner v. Texas International Co., et al., C.A. No. B4-0LOY
Thomas Hoke v. Texas International Co., et al., C.A. No. 84-0879 Cwi Elsie Shapiro v. Texas International Co., et al., C.A. No. 84-1387
Alan A. Berger, et al. v. Texas International Co., et al., C.A. No. 84-1510
®