IN RE: U.S. Financial Securities Litigation

“= Case MDLNo. 161 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1of4 hEBEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL pu ERIGAL Bans oy
ON CERT
'é MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION IRIEy .
IN RE U.S. FINANCIAL ) JUK-5 ja74
SECURITIES LITIGATION ) DOCKET NO.p del =
CLEis ge v faa7	ERENT
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 concerns the affairs of U.S. Financial,
Inc., a multifaceted real estate company, and consists of ten
private actions in five different districts. Plaintiffs allege
that U.S. Financial and certain closely related companies and
individuals violated the federal securities laws by furnishing
@ false and misleading information about U.S. Financial to the
investing public. Many of the actions contain requests for
class designations on behalf of persons who purchased various
types of U.S. Financial securities.
Certain defendants move the Panel for an order trans-
ferring all actions to the Southern District of New York for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §1407. Another defendant has countermoved for an order
transferring these actions to the Southern District of Califor-
nia. All responding parties favor transfer of this litigation
and the only disputed issue is the choice of the appropriate trans-
feree forum. We find that these actions involve common questions
* Judge Murrah was unable to attend the hearing and, therefore,
@ took no part in the consideration or decision of this matter.	\ J

E h Case MDL No. 161 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 2 of 4
«2 <
”
é of fact and that their transfer under Section 1407 to the Southern
District of California will best serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct
of the litigation.
As is often the case in multidistrict securities 1liti-
gation, the prevalence of common factual issues and similar class
allegations necessitates transfer of all actions to a single
+ district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
under Section 1407 in order to prevent duplication of discovery
and eliminate the possibility of inconsistent or overlapping
class determinations. See, e.g., In re Clinton 0il Company
Securities Litigation, 368 F. Supp. 813 (J.P.M.L. 1973). We agree
@ iv the parties that this litigation falls within that norm.
The Southern District of California, rather than the
Southern District of New York, is clearly the most appropriate
transferee forum for this litigation. U.S. Financial's corporate
headquarters are located in the Southern District of California
and, as a result, the vast majority of relevant documents and
anticipated witnesses are located there. In addition, there are
several actions pending in California state courts that share
common factual issues with the federal actions. Thus,
the opportunity for the state and federal courts to coordinate
discovery programs is an additional reason favoring transfer of
this litigation to California. See In re Silver Plume, Colorado,
Air Disaster Litigation, 352 F. Supp. 968,969 (J.P.M.L. 1972);
@::- In re Florida Everglades Air Disaster Litigation, 360 F. Supp.
1394, 1395-96 (J.P.M.L. 1973). Furthermore, U.S. Financial is

“ E Case MDL No. 161 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	3 of 4
p - 3 -
8 involved in a Chapter XI reorganization proceeding in the
Southern District of California and many of the documents
relevant to that proceeding will also be involved in this liti-
gation.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that all actions listed on
the attached Schedule A pending in districts other than the
Southern District of California be, and the same hereby are,
transferred to the Southern District of California and, with
the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Howard B.
Turrentine for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 with the actions listed on
Schedule A which are already pending in that district.
e
®

Case MDL No. 161 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 4 of 4
ET | 'SCHEDULE A ' DOCKET NO. 161
EE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
— Penn Mart Realty Company v. U. S. Financial, Civil Action
Inc., et al. : No. 72 Civ. 5286
: Michael Fabrikant v. Robert G. Stewart, Civil Action
et al. No. 73 Civ. 3680
Michael Fabrikant v. Robert G. Stewart, Civil Action
TE Co et al. No. 73 Civ. 4897
Decatur Income Fund, Inc. et al. v. Touche, Civil Action
- Ross & Co., et al. No. 73 Civ. 4896
Lutheran Brotherhood v. Touche, Ross & Co., Civil Action
et al. No. 73 Civ. 5042
. NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
First National Bank of Toledo, et al. v. U. Civil Action
: S. Financial Inc., et al. No. C 737398
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
reat Commonwealth Life Insurance Co. Vv. Civil Action
R. H. Walter, et al. . No. CA-3-7685E
WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mellon Bank, N.A., et al. v. Touche, Ross Civil Action
& Co., et al. No. 73-981
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
William D. Foote v. R. H. Walter, et al. Civil Action
No. 73-508-5
John Page Risque v. Robert H. Walter Civil ActionNo. 73-312-T