IN RE: Glenn W. Turner Enterprises Litigation

Case MDL No. 109 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 18
- MuyELD oy | S Co .BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL Ce TY a To a
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION Dz? 13 1377 in oo -PAT vo, : SAUTE NE
. IN RE GLENN W. TURNER 0) DOCKET TO. rR ETEENTERPRISES LITIGATION ) oo r.
ORDER- . }
The Panel having found, upon the basis of the papers se REPT
submitted and the hearing held, that the actions listed on the TE
attached Schedule A involve common questions of fact and that - pt
their transfer to the Western District of Pennsylvania would :
serve the convenience of the parties. and witnesses and would -
further the just and efficient conduct of the litigation, AT
IT IS ORDERED that all actions on the attached Schedule | BR vj oo
A pending in districts other than the Western District of . . i,
Pennsylvania be, and the same hereby are, transferred to the LL BE
Western District of Pennsylvania and, with the consent of that Co Sh
court, assigned to the Honorable Gerald J. Weber for coordinated | 8 -
or consolidated pretrial proceedings, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, | -
with the action pending	in that district and listed on Schedule A. Co
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that transfer of the action, oo .
Securities and Exchange Commission Vv. Glenn W. Turner Enterprises, a Lo EE
Inc., et al, District of Oregon, civil Action No. 72-390, be, | )
and the same hereby is, DENIED.
A full opinion and order will be filed hereafter. I on
FOR THE PANEL: 0 oo
Jr yay : / oo | BN	: A ge
Chairman

Case MDL No. 109 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 2 of 18
@ SCHEDULE A DOCKET NO. 109
DISTRICT OF OREGON .
Daniel Ewald Kehr, et al., v. Dare to be Civil Action
© Great, Inc., et al. : No. 71-807 oo
Rozelia Johnson v. Dare to be Great, Inc., Civil Action
et al. i No. 72-194 :
Gary Lee King v. Dare to be Great, Inc., Civil Action
et al. i No. 72-195
~ David N. Garlington v. Dare to be Great, Civil Action
Inc., et al. No. 72-342
Pat G. Trotti, etc. v. Koscot Civil Action
Interplanetary, Inc. No. 171-673
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Co
William K. Robins, III, et al. v. | Civil Action |
Glenn W. Turner, et al. No. 71-1941
| WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA . .
0.... T. Bussey, et al. v. Dare 3 Civil Action |to be Great ) : No. 72-211
| NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS ,
Joseph P. Cawthon, III, v. Dare Civil Action No.
to be Great 3-5673-D
Donald L. Woodfin v. Dare to be Great Civil Action No. |
~~ 3-5958-D |}
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Nancy L. Evans, etc. v. Koscot Civil Action No.
Interplanetary, Inc., et al. 72-214-Phx
| DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT a
Fred Threlfall, et al. v. Glenn W. Turner - Civil Action
Enterprises, Inc., et al. : No. 14774

Case MDL No. 109 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 3 of 18
x, - ’
@o SCHEDULE A DOCKET NO. 109
oo EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Ralph J. Grosso, et al. v. Koscot Civil Action
Interplanetary, Inc., et al. No. 72-C-433 oo
- NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
John W. Tolbert, Jr., et al. wv. o Civil Action
Koscot Interplanetary, Inc., et al. . No. 71-1199
John E. Storey v. Dare to be Great Civil Action :
. : No. 72-514
- SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA |
Charles H. Tucker, II, etc. v. Civil Action No.
Glenn W. Turner Enterprises, Inc., et al. IP 72-C-91
1] , - Ll
. | 9 ! ’
|
| | |

Case MDL No. 109 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 4 of 18
‘ Him, £ . :	. | SATE VL hwy, . C
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL	~~ = LMF Te. ON he SN
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION — oo oe
IN RE GLENN W. TURNER ) EEC EER A Ie:
ENTERPRISES LITIGATION ) DOCKET NO. ‘109... 7 i oo
OPINION AND ORDER whe
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM, So Te
EDWARD WEINFELD*, EDWIN A. ROBSON*, WILLIAM H. BECKER, co co :
JOSEPH S. LORD, III, AND STANLEY A. WEIGEL*, JUDGES OF Co ey _
THE PANEL Co ST
PER CURIAM g
The activities of Dare to be Great, Inc., and REE
Koscot Interplanetary, Inc., two subsidiaries of Glenn
W. Turner Enterprises, Inc., are the subject of seventeen : Lo
+ actions in ten districts seeking recovery for alleged fraud a 0
and deceit and violations of the state and federal securities Ce i
laws. On its own initiative the Panel ordered the parties |
to these actions to show cause why they should not be
transferred to a single district, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. : )
§1407, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. RET
On the basis of the responses to the order and the argument Co
at the hearing on this matter, we have concluded that all
actions, except the action brought by the Securities and : 7
* Judge Edward Weinfeld took no part in the hearing or Co :
decision of this matter. Judges Robson and Weigel To -
were unable to attend the hearing but have, with the : E
consent of all parties, participated in this decision. oo Co

Case MDL No. 109 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	5 of 18
° 2
Exchange Commission, should be transferred to the Western
District of Pennsylvania for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings. |
Six of the actions brought by private individuals
attack the method by which Koscot engaged in the distribution
of mink-oil based cosmetics. The cosmetics were apparently
sold through a complex pyramid of distributorships and sub-
distributorships and it is alleged, among other claims, that
the cosmetics and the method of distribution were investment
contracts or securities which were sold by misrepresenta-
tions and omissions in violation of the federal securities
acts. Most of these actions also assert conflicting claims
® to class representation of purchasers of the cosmetic products
| and distributorship rights.
Six other actions by private investors make
similar claims against Dare to be Great, which was organized
after Koscot. Dare to be Great was, until recently, engaged
in the sale of motivation, sales and self-improvement courses
by means of a pyramidal promotion system. Members of the
public were invited to meetings at which they were induced
to purchase the courses and to sell or to induce others to
sell the courses. These courses and the method of selling
them are also alleged to be securities or investment contracts
sold in violation of federal securities laws and the plaintiffs
in these cases also assert overlapping and conflicting class
[ representation claims. The remaining private investor actions
are brought against both Koscot and Dare to be Great and

Case MDL No. 109 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 6 of 18
- 3 -
® contain allegations concerning both businesses.
It is clear that coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings are required for the cases brought
against Koscot and also for the cases brought against
Dare to be Great. The question raised by the parties is
whether the claims against both defendants should be trans-
ferred to a single forum. Many of the plaintiffs argue
that each of the two corporations operated independently,
selling different products by different promotional methods
and contracts and that the two categories of claims should
be separated to assure that the individual facts with regard
to each business are fully and expeditiously developed. But
® the two categories of actions are not unrelated.
N The Koscot and Dare to be Great businesses were
allegedly conceived and promoted by the same individuals
and the two corporations allegedly have interlocking owner-
ship and directors. It should be noted in this connection
that both Glenn W. Turner Enterprises, Inc., the parent
corporation, and Glenn W. Turner, individually, are named
defendants in all these actions. Because of the common
factors we think it best serves the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and the just and efficient conduct
of these actions to place all of them in the same district,
leaving to the discretion of the transferee judge the nature
and extent of the coordination or consolidation between
® the two groups of cases. In re Plumbing Fixtures Antitrust
Litigation, 295 F. Supp. 33, 34 (J.P.M.L. 1968).

Case MDL No. 109 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	7 of 18
| -4-
And of the districts proposed as transferee district, the
Western District of Pennsylvania is best suited to receive
these cases. The action pending there is in a relatively
advanced stage and the counsel, parties and witnesses in
this nation-wide litigation will experience the least
inconvenience in travelling there.
The only remaining question is whether the SEC
action, filed in the District of Oregon, should be trans-
ferred for pretrial proceedings with the other actions.
The SEC action seeks injunctive relief against Glenn W. Turner
Enterprises, Dare to be Great and the individual officers
and directors of those companies for alleged violations
® of the federal securities laws in connection with the sales
programs of Dare to be Great. No claim is made concerning
| the Koscot busines&. The SEC resists transfer and we believe
that on the individual facts of this litigation transfer
should not be ordered.
An extensive hearing on the SEC's request for
preliminary injunctive relief has already been held
and Glenn W. Turner Enterprises, Dare to be Great and
the officers and directors and all persons in active concert
with them have been restrained and enjoined from selling,
or offering to sell, in interstate commerce, certain of
the self-motivation courses which are the subject of the
private complaints unless the applicable provisions of
® the federal securities laws are complied with. At the same
time the motions of defendants for dismissal and summary

Case MDL No. 109 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 8 of 18
» e-
judgment were denied. Securities & Exchange Commission Vv.
Glenn W. Turner Enterprises, Inc., 348 F. Supp 766
(D. Ore. 1972 (Skopil, J.). This action is obviously
far advanced and it would not serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses nor the just and efficient conduct
of any of these actions to transfer it now. Furthermore,
the evidence received in the extensive adversary hearing
on the crucial issues in the SEC action before Judge Skopil
has ‘become part of the record of the trial on the merits.
Rule 65(a) (2), Fed. R. Civ. P. Because of this, in essence
the trial on the merits has begun in the Distxict of Oregon,
and a transfer now would interrupt a trial essentially
® in progress.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that all actions on the
attached Schedule A be, and the same hereby are, transferred
to the Western District of Pennsylvania and assigned to
the Honorable Gerald J. Weber for coordinated and consolidated
pretrial proceedings, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, with the
action pending in that district and listed on Schedule A.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that transfer of the action,
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Glenn W. Turner
Enterprises, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 72-390,
District of Oregon, be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
®

Case MDL No. 109 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 9 of 18
C SCHEDULE A DOCKET NO. 109
DISTRICT OF OREGON }
Daniel Ewald Kehr, et al. v. Dare Civil Action
to be Great, Inc., et al. No. 71-807
Rozelia Johnson v. Dare to be Great, Civil Action
et al. No. 72-194
Gary Lee King v. Dare to be Great, Civil Action
Inc., et al. No. 72-195
David N. Garlington v. Dare to be Civil Action
Great, Inc., et al. No. 72-342
Pat G. Trotti, etc. v. Koscot Civil Action
Interplanetary, Inc. No. 71-673
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
William K. Robins, III, et al. v. Civil Action
Glenn W. Turner, et al. No. 71-1941
® WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA= Richard T. Bussey, et al. v. Dare Civil Action
to be Great No. 72-211
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Joseph P. Cawthon, III, v. Dare Civil Action
to be Great No. 3-5673-D
Donald L. Woodfin v. Dare to be Great Civil Action
No. 3-5958-D
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Nancy L. Evans, etc. v. Koscot Civil Action
Interplanetary, Inc., et al. No. 72-214-Phx
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Fred Threlfall, et al. v. Glenn Civil Action
W. Turner Enterprises, Inc., et al. No. 14774

Case MDL No. 109 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 10 of 18
® SCHEDULE A = 2 - DOCKET NO. 109
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Ralph J. Grosso, et al. v. Koscot Civil Action
Interplanetary, Inc., et al. No. 72-C-433
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
John W. Tolbert, Jr. et al. v. Civil Action
Koscot Interplanetary, Inc., et al. No. 71 1199
John E. Storey v. Dare to be Great Civil Action
No. 72-514
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
Charles H. Tucker, II, etc. Vv. Civil Action
Glenn W. Turner Enterprises, Inc., No. IP 72-C-91
et al.

Case MDL No. 109 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 11 of 18
oe aL Gt Co
| apotl BELSRBEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL NU TSIRIEE BE EEON FILED .
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION 78 Og SIR ICogEp Ll wn S/o HE
IN RE GLENN W. TURNER ENTERPRISES ) DOCKET,	NO .;y 199: itt) hot ee
LITIGATION ) PATRIABr 2phe | ELA	) CLERK 0s [RE :
Koscot Interplanetary, Inc. v. )
Theodore I. Koskoff, et al., )
S.D. Florida, C.A. No. 79-1709-Civ )
OPINION AND ORDER oo BREET
BEFORE MURRAY I. GURFEIN, CHAIRMAN, AND EDWIN A. ROBSON, Rt
STANLEY A. WEIGEL, ANDREW A. CAFFREY, ROY W. HARPER, AND Lo Ra CL
CHARLES R. WEINER, JUDGES OF THE PANEL. 0
PER CURIAM | i
The Panel previously centralized several actions in :
) the above-captioned litigation in the Western District of | : BEE oo
Pennsylvania before the Honorable Gerald J. Weber for k - Ea -
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant LL TH
to 28 U.S.C. §1407.L1/ The centralized actions involve a. i
allegations that Dare to be Great, Inc. and Koscot | 3 oo on
Interplanetary, Inc. (Koscot), two subsidiaries of Glenn W. | fn
Turner Enterprises, Inc., violated the federal securities Co
laws by engaging in pyramidal marketing schemes. Many of So DE
| :
the actions in the transferee district were brought as class | oo .
actions by persons who allegedly were victims of these schemes. | i SEE
1/ In re Glenn W. Turner Enterprises Litigation, 355 F. | Co :
Supp. 1402 (J.P.M.L. 1973), 383 F. Supp. 844 (J.P.M.L. 1974). | :
|
FP. -MAR==-3-07.79.C	4-17 81 : Se

Case MDL No. 109 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 12 of 18
-2- oo Co -
: - oo
The action now before	us (Koskoff) was filed by Koscot - Lh a.
in April, 1979, in Florida state court and was subsequently | Le Co
removed to the federal court in the Southern District of Ji
Florida. Defendants are an attorney (Koskoff), his partners,
and his law firm, who previously represented some of the
defendants in the actions in the transferee district. Koscot : SE
alleges that it delivered to Koskoff the total sum of $300,000 B IEA 8
to be retained by Koskoff and his co-defendants in an escrow . Ee Se
account pending the outcome of a proposed settlement in the
actions in the transferee district. According to Koscot, -
if the court did not approve that proposed settlement, then RENE oo
the money was to be returned to Koscot. Koscot further alleges on ER EE
that the settlement was not approved, that Koskoff kept $75,000 oo
of the $300,000, and that he improperly diverted the balance, ’ is
which after accumulating interest totaled $244,531.84, Koscot - oo
claims that Koskoff's conduct was a breach of fiduciary duty, | ol
| constituted conversion, breached the escrow agreement, and Co
vielated the public policy of the State of Florida. Koscot RC oo
| seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $300,000 and | oo| unscine damages in an amount to be determined by the trier EE EE
os fact. .| Koskoff responds that he exercised an attorney's lien
| under Connecticut law for legal fees owed him. He further ’Ii .
| states that he believed that the remainder of the $300,000 :
oetonces to Glenn W. Turner Enterprises, Inc. Because others, Co oo
| tretuding Koscot and class representatives in the transferee | oC |asserice, claimed entitlement to that money, Koskoff, pursuant |
to an order entered by Judge Weber on March 22, 1974, deposited |
FP MAR—-3	27.78 oye

Case MDL No. 109 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 13 of 18
_3_
1 the remaining $244,531.84 with the Clerk of Court for the
L 2 Western District of Pennsylvania. |
3 Koscot made a limited appearance in the Western District
4 of Pennsylvania to claim recovery of the money deposited |
with the Clerk of Court by Koskoff. A hearing was held con- |> cerning the proper disposition of this money on December
6 29, 1974, before Judge Weber. No ruling has yet resulted
7 from that hearing and the money continues to be in the custody
8 of the Clerk of Court.
9 Defendants in Koskoff move the Panel, pursuant to 28
10 U.S.C. §1407, to transfer Koskoff to the Western District
11 : of Pennsylvania for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
15 proceedings with the actions previously transferred there. |Class representatives in a class action pending in the
9: transferee district support transfer of Koskoff. Koscot
14 opposes transfer.
15 We find that Koskoff shares questions of fact with
16 the actions previously transferred to the Western District
17 of Pennsylvania and that transfer of Koskoff to that district
18 will best serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
19 and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.
In opposing transfer, Koscot argues that Koskoff involves
20 alleged malfeasance of attorneys, whereas the actions in
21 the Western District of Pennsylvania involve alleged violations
22 of federal and state securities laws. Koscot thus urges
23 that no questions of fact are shared by Koskoff and the actions !
24 in the transferee district. Furthermore, Koscot contends |
® I" no activity of any kind has transpired in the previouslyFPIMAR-—3.27.78.6M-1781

Case MDL No. 109 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 14 of 18
ya
1 transferred actions for over three years. Koscot argues that
2 the litigation in the transferee district is no longer viable
3 for lack of any proceedings there, and for the additional
4 reason that the claims in the transferee district against
5 Koscot were probably discharged when Koscot invoked the federal
bankruptcy laws in July, 1973.
© We are not persuaded by these arguments. The presence
7 of differing legal theories in Koskoff and the actions in
8 the transferee district does not negate the existence of
9 common questions of fact concerning who is entitled to the
10 money originally transmitted to Koskoff. See In re Air Crash
11 Disaster in the Ionian Sea on September 8, 1974, 438 F. Supp.
12 932, 934 (J.P.M.L. 1977). Indeed, most of that money is
now under the custody of the transferee district, the transferee
+ court already has held at least one hearing?’ on a petition
14 by Koscot to recover that money, and movants represent that
15 all possible claimants to the money are already before the
16 transferee court. Transfer under Section 1407 is thus necessary
17 in order to avoid duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent
18 pretrial rulings, conserve judicial resources, and ensure
19 the cooperation of all parties and counsel. We note that
20 the transferee judge has the authority to invoke procedures
whereby discovery already completed in the transferee district
2 and relevant to Koskoff may be made applicable to Koskoff,
22 See Manual for Complex Litigation, Parts I and II, §§3.11
24 2/Plaintiffs	in the transferee district represented atoral argument before us that the transferee court has held
i. two other hearings on issues common to those raised in Koskoff.
FPI=MAR—=3.27.78.64.178)
i

Case MDL No. 109 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 15 of 18
} in
( 1 (rev. ed. 1977). And, of course, discovery on any issues= 2 unique to Koskoff may be scheduled by the transferee judge
3 ‘to proceed concurrently with the undertaking of any common
4 pretrial matters. See In re Republic National-Realty Equities
5 Securities Litigation, 312 F. Supp. 1403, 1405-06 (J.P.M.L.
6 1974).
Finally, we note that 46 actions remain pending in
’ the transferee district and that pretrial proceedings are
8 continuing there. The effect that federal bankruptcy pro-
° ceedings may have had on the conduct of claims raised against
10 Koscot in the transferee district presumably would be either
11 irrelevant to Koskoff or would otherwise similarly affect
12 Koskoff regardless of the district in which Koskoff was
P- pending.
14 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1407, the action entitled Koscot Interplanetary, Inc. Vv.
15 Theodore I. Koskoff, S.D. Florida, Civil Action No. 79-1709-
16 Civ., be, and the same hereby is, transferred to the Western
17 District of Pennsylvania and, with the consent of that court,
18 assigned to the Honorable Gerald J. Weber for coordinated
19 or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions in
20 this litigation which are already pending in that district.
21
22
23
&25
|
FPL-MAR—3 7.78 6M.1781

Case MDL No. 109 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 16 of 18
PTET LL a
‘ FiLty Lo Lo
an 1355 i tiie RE
DOCKET NO. 109 ii 12 133 | EE
PATRIIND. vv 2 bo CS
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATRQN :: (iF 1... oo Haha 5 Bd :
1 RE GLENN W. TURNER ENTERPRISES LITIGATION Fo
REMAND ORDER* :
The fifteen actions listed on the attached Schedule Co Co
were previously transferred by the Panel to the Western Loose
strict of Pennsylvania, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, and I ERE
;signed to the Honorable Gerald J. Weber for inclusion ET
1 coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in this wo Se oo
ocket. In re Glenn W. Turner Enterprises Litigation, 355 To SE
Supp. 1402 (J.P.M.L. 1973); 368 F. Supp. 805 (J.P.M.L.
173); 383 F. Supp. 844 (J.P.M.L. 1874); 476 F. Supp. 459
WP.M.L. 1979). Upon the suggestion of the transferee
urt, the Panel entered orders conditionally remanding : =
ese fifteen actions to their respective transferor districts. Cl oo
1uils Romito and Robert Fierle, defendants and cross-plaintiffs Loe - .
i an action originally commenced in the transferee district, FEES ©
pose remand. EE
On the basis of the papers Filed! and the transferee CL sl
dge's recommendation, the Panel finds that remand of these : } co
tions 1s appropriate at this time. In considering the oo
estion of remand, the Panel has consistently given great IE i
ight to the transferee judge's determination that remand : Ce
a particular action at a particular time is appropriate 2 ne
cause the transferee judge, after all, supervises the _
y-to-day pretrial proceedings. See, e.g., In re IBM : .
ripheral EDP Devices Antitrust Litigation, 407 F. Supp. ’ EE
4, 256 (J.P.M.L. 1976). The transferee judge's notice : ’
suggestion of remand to the Panel is obviously an indication : So oo
at he perceives his role under Section 1407 to have ended. : :
re Air Crash Disaster Near Dayton, Chic, on March 9, . -
67, 386 F. Supp. 908, 909 (J.P.M.L. 1975). Here Judge EE So
ber has concluded that further coordinated or consolidated CE
Judges Roy W. Harper and Sam C. Pointer, Jr. took no So ‘
rt in the decision of this matter. Co
The parties waived oral argument and accordingly the So : Co
zstion of remand of these actions under 28 U.S.C. §1407 oe :
5s submitted on the briefs. Rule 14, R.P.J.P.M.L., 89
R.D. 273, 283-84 (1981).

Case MDL No. 109 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 17 of 18
' -2pretrial proceedings in these actions would be unavailing.
We adopt his recommendation and order remand.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1407(a), the actions listed on the attached Schedule A
be, and the same hereby are, remanded to the districts from
which they were transferred.
FOR THE PANEL:
Andrew A. Caffrey
Chairman
_

Case MDL No. 109 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 18 of 18
| ScheduleAMDL-109 -- In re Glenn W. Turner Enterprises Litigation
Western District of Pennsylvania
James E. Randall, et al. v. Dare to be Great, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 73-629, (N.D. Ala., C.A. No. CA72-750)
Nancy L. Evans, etc. v. Koscot Interplanetary, Inc.,
et al., C.A. No. 72-1094 (D. Ariz., C.A. No.
Civ-72-214-Phx.)
Fred Threlfall, et al. v. Glenn W. Turner Enterprises
Inc., et al., C.A. No. 72-1095 (D. Conn., C.A. No.
14774) - :
Mr. Arthur Reed Cafiero, et al. v. Glenn W. Turner
Enterprises, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 73-0637 (E.D. La.,
C.A. No. 72-2556 Sec. B)
James I Danielson, et al. v. Turner Enterprises, et al.,
C.A. No. 75-1129 (w.D. Mich., C.A. No. G233-72CA)
Robert Brooks v. Glenn W. Turner, et al.,
C.A. 73-772, (N.D. Okla., C.A. No. 73C195)
Jackie C. Mills v. Glenn W. Turner, et al.,
: C.A. No. 73-854 (W.D. Okla., 73-32-B)
Roselia Johnson v. Dare to be Great, et al., C.A. No.
72-1087 (D. Oreg., 72-194)
9 Gary Lee King v. Dare to be Great, Inc., et al., C.A.No. 72-1088 (D. Oreg., 72-195)
David N. Garlington v. Dare to be Great, et al.,
C.A. No. 72-1089 (D. Oreg., 72-342)
Pat G. Trotti, etc. v. Koscot Interplanetary, Inc.,
C.A. No. 72-1090 (D. Oreg., C.A. No. 71-673)
Gary L. King, et al. v. Dare to be Great, et al.,
C.A. No. 73-618 (D. Oreg., 72-840)
Gladys T. Burnelle v. Dare to be Great, et al.,
C.A. No. 73-619 (D. Oreg., C.A. No. 72-420)
Gregory Smith v. Central Penn National Bank,
C.A. No. 73-640 (E.D. Pa., 72-2506)
George James Bennett, Sr., et al. v. Glenn W. Turner,
et al., 73-643 (W.D. Tex., SA72CA310)