IN RE: Clinton Oil Company Securities Litigation

Case MDL No. 137 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 5
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL En
ON PEC 12 1973
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE CLINTON OIL COMPANY )
SECURITIES LITIGATION ) DOCKET NO. 137
OPINION AND ORDER
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH*, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM,
EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A, ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER?%,
JOSEPH S. LORD, III, AND STANLEY A. WEIGEL, JUDGES OF THE
PANEL
PER CURIAM
This litigation consists of seven private actions in
five different districts against Clinton 0il Company and
certain individuals concerning alleged violations of the
federal securities laws. Plaintiffs in these actions purport
to represent basically two classes of claimants: persons who
purchased participating interests in oil and gas programs of
Clintion 0il and persons who purchased Clinton 0il common
stock.
Defendant Clinton Oil moves the Panel for an order trans-
ferring all actions to the District of Kansas for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407.
All parties except plaintiff Bekoff favor transfer of their
respective actions; the parties disagree, however, as to which
® Although Judges Murrah and Becker were unable to attend
the Panel hearing, they have, with the consent of all
parties, participated in this decision.

Case MDL No. 137 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2 of 5
- . Co,
district is the most appropriate transferee forum. We find
that these actions involve common questions of fact and that
transfer of all actions to the District of Kansas will best
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote
the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
In January 1973 the Securities and Exchange Commission
brought an action in the District of Kansas against Clinton
0il Company and certain former officers, directors and employees
of Clinton 0il or Real Petroleum Company. The SEC alleged that
the prospectuses disseminated by Clinton 0il in connection with
its oil and gas programs and the prospectus disseminated by
Real Petroleum in connection with the merger of Real Petroleum
into Clinton Oil were in violation of the federal securities
laws. The complaints in the seven private actions contain
allegations substantially similar to those asserted by the SEC.
Because the private actions clearly raise common factual
issues and. contain similar class allegations, transfer to a
single district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings is necessary in order to avoid duplication of
discovery and eliminate the possibility of inconsistent class
determinations, See, €.g., In re Mutual	Fund Sales Antitrust
"Litigation, 361 F. Supp. 638 (J.P.M.L. 1973).
Plaintiff Bekoff is the only party who opposes transfer.
His action was commenced as both a class and derivative action.
The class claim seeks relief on behalf of all former share-
holders of Real Petroleum who received Clinton 0il stock upon
the merger of the two companies. The derivative claim, on

Case MDL No. 137 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 3 of 5
-— 3 -
the other hand, is based upon a contention that defendant
Rialto P. Clinton was indebted to Clinton 0il and has refused
to honor the obligation. Bekoff opposes transfer on two grounds.
First, he asserts that he does not intend to pursue his class
claim but rather will rely on the class representative in one
of the other actions. Secondly, he argues that the derivative
claim has little in common with the other actions.
We are not persuaded by Bekoff's argument. Even if he
does not pursue his class claim, we believe that transfer of
this action for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
with the other actions in this litigation is warranted because
the factual issues raised in the derivative claim clearly will
involve discovery common to all actions.
Although certain parties urge transfer to an East Coast
location, we find that the District of Kansas is the = =~
most appropriate transferee forum for this litigation. The
defendant's corporate headquarters is located in Kansas and, as
a result, the vast majority of the relevant documents and
anticipated witnesses are located within that district. In
addition, the transferee judge may coordinate proceedings in the
private actions with the proceedings in the SEC action, which
is also pending in the District of Kansas.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on the
attached Schedule A pending in districts other than the District
of Kansas be, and the same hereby are, transferred to the
District of Kansas and, with the consent of that court, assigned

Case MDL No. 137 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 4 of 5
— a-
to the Honorable Wesley E. Brown for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 with the actions
pending in that district and listed on Schedule A.

Case MDL No. 137 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 5 of 5 :
SCHEDULE A DOCKET NO. 137
DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Shirley B. D'Alonzo v. Clinton Oil Civil Action
Company, et al. No. W-5083
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Oscar Bekoff, et al. v. R. E. Clinton, Civil Action
et al. No. 72 Civ, 1880
Paul Kreindler v. Clinton 0il Company, Civil Action
et al. No. 72 Civ. 5164
Hugh Barnes, et al. v. Clinton 0il Civil Action
Company, et al. No. 72 Civ. 306
DISTRICT	OF MASSACHUSETTS
John M. DeStefano, et al. v. Clinton Civil Action
0il Company, et al. No. 73-586-G
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Jack Nathan v. @linton 0il Company, Civil Action
et al. No. 72C2025
" EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA-
Mary d4'0. Saurbrey, etc. v. Clinton Civil Action
0il Company, et al. No. 73-vens 138