IN RE: Piper Aircraft Distribution System Antitrust Litigation

Case MDL No. 217 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 8
= JUDICIAL PANEL (OM
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATIONBEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL Fi.E1
ON DEC 18 1973
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
PATRICIA D. HOWARD
CLERK OF THE PANEL
IN RE PIPER AIRCRAFT DISTRIBUTION ) CKE
SYSTEM ANTITRUST LITIGATION ) DOCKET NO. 217
OPINION AND ORDER
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM*,
EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON¥*, WILLIAM H. BECKERY¥*,
JOSEPH S. LORD, III, AND STANLEY A. WEIGEL, JUDGES OF THE
PANEL
PER CURIAM
Van-S-Aviation Corp., a dealer ofproducts made by
Piper Aircraft Corporation, has instituted six actions in
six different districts: one each in the Western District
of Missouri, the Eastern District of Arkansas, the Northern
District of Georgia, the Eastern District of Illinois, the
District of Connecticut and the District of South Carolina.
Each action was commenced pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§15
(treble damages) and 26 (injunctive relief) and alleges
violations of the Sherman and Robinson-Patman antitrust
acts by Piper and certain Piper distributors.
* Although Judges Wisdom, Robson and Becker were unable
to attend the Panel hearing, they have, with the consent
of all parties, participated in this decision.

Case MDL No. 217 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2 of 8
- 2 -
Plaintiff Van-S-Aviation moves the Panel for
an order transferring all actions to the Western District
of Missouri for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407. Muncie Aviation
Corp. and Gregory Aviation Co., two of the defendants
in the Missouri action, take no position concerning the
propriety of transfer other than to maintain that if
transfer were deemed appropriate by the Panel, the
Western District of Missouri would be the proper forum.
While Piper, the remaining defendant in the Missouri
action, does not oppose transfer to the Western District
of Missouri, it believes that any decision by the Panel
to transfer these actions should be stayed until certain
motions are decided in each action. The other ten
defendants in these actions adopt defendant Piper's
position.
We find that these actions involve common
questions of fact and that their transfer to the Western
District of Missouri for coordinated or consolidated pre-
trial proceedings under Section 1407 will best serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the
just and efficient conduct of this litigation.

Case MDL No. 217 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 3 of 8
- 3 -
Under Piper's original two-level distribution
system, Piper manufactured and sold aircraft, parts,
avionics and accessories directly to Piper distributors
or Piper dealers at uniform prices, which enabled the
dealers to compete effectively with the distributors.
About 1960, Piper and certain of its distributors
allegedly revised this distribution scheme in an unlawful
manner, requiring that Piper products be sold directly
to Piper distributors only and, furthermore, that these
commodities be offered to distributors at a lower price
than to dealers.
Although most extensive in allegations and
named defendants, the Missouri action is representative
of the other five actions. Plaintiff commenced this
action against Piper and two of its many distributors,
Muncie Aviation Corp. and Gregory Aviation Co. Certain
Piper distributors are unnamed co-conspirators. The
complaint contains allegations that defendants Piper and
Muncie separately violated Section 2(a) of the Robinson-
Patman Act by selling Piper products at discriminatory
prices; that defendants Muncie and Gregory and other
Piper distributors violated Section 2(f) of the Robinson-

Case MDL No. 217 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 4 of 8
- 4 -
Patman Act by knowingly receiving Piper commodities at
prices discriminatory to Piper dealers; and that defendants
Piper, Muncie and Gregory and other Piper digtributors . .. :_ -.
violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by engaging in a
combination and conspiracy to . restrain trade via a dis-
criminatory pricing system and a boycott, thereby
eliminating competition from Piper dealers.
The remaining five actions are brought against
certain Piper distributors who are unique to each action.
Plaintiff in these actions alleges violations of Section
2(f) of the Robinson-Patman Act and Section 1 of the
Sherman Act that are similar to those asserted in the
Missouri action.
Plaintiff purports to represent two classes
in the Missouri action. The first class -- indicative
of the classes desired in the other five actions -- is
composed of all formerly and presently authorized Piper
dealers located throughout the United States. The second
class -- unique to the Missouri action -- consists of all
formerly and presently authorized Piper dealers located
in the geographic area served by defendant Muncie, who
have or had contractual arrangements with Muncie to serve
as authorized Piper dealers,

Case MDL No. 217 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 5 of 8
- 5 —
All parties advocating a position agree that
the statutory criteria for transfer of these actions
under Section 1407 are satisfied and that the Western
District of Missouri is the most appropriate transferee
forum. Defendant Piper and its supporting defendants
disagree with the transfer motion only to the extent that
they believe any decision to transfer these actions
should not be effectuated until the following motions
are decided in their respective districts: (1) motions
filed in all six actions opposing plaintiff's filing of
the same motion for a class action determination, which
was recently denied in an action similar to these six
that was commenced in the Southern District of Florida;
and (2) a motion in the Missouri action seeking to deny
class action certification because of an alleged abuse of
Rule 23 by plaintiff's counsel.
These actions clearly involve common questions
of fact and we concur with the parties that their
transfer to a single forum for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial processing is necessary for the most prudent dis-
position of this entire litigation. Nevertheless, we
refuse to follow defendants' suggestion that transfer be

Case MDL No. 217 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 6 of 8
- fH =-
delayed until certain motions have been adjudicated by
the respective judges before whom each action is currently
pending. As the Panel has held in several past litigations,
matters concerning class action certification should be
included in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial pro-
ceedings in order to prevent inconsistent rulings and
promote judicial efficiency. See, e.9., In re Multi-
district Private Civil Treble Damage Litigation Involving
Plumbing Fixtures, 308 F. Supp. 242, 243-44 (J.P.M.L.
1970); In re Multidistrict Civil Antitrust Actions
Involving Antibiotic Drugs, 299 F. Supp. 1403, 1405
(F.P.M.L. 1969); In re Plumbing Fixture Cases, 298 F.
Supp. 484, 493-95 (J.P.M.L. 1968).
We also concur with the parties' view that
the Western District of Missouri is the most appropriate
transferee forum for this litigation. The action pending
in this district is the most extensive of the six actions,
and it also appears to be the furthest advanced.
| IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §1407, the actions listed on the following Schedule
A and not pending in the Western District of Missouri be,

Case MDL No. 217 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 7 of 8
-7 -
and the same hereby are, transferred to the Western
District of Missouri and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to the Honorable James H. Gorbey, sitting by
designation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §292(b), for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the action
pending in that district and listed on Schedule A.

Case MDL No. 217 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 8 of 8
SCHEDULE A
Docket No. 217 -- In re Piper Aircraft Distribution
System Antitrust Litigation
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
Van-S-Aviation Corp. v. Memphis Civil Action
Aero Corp., et al. No. LR-75-C-107
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Van-S-Aviation Corp. v. Epervita, Civil Action
Inc. No. C 75-803A
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Van-S-Aviation Corp. v. Tufts Civil Action
Edgcumbe, Inc.,, et al. No. 75-2-050
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Van-S-Aviation Corp. v. E. W. Civil Action
Wiggins Airways, Inc. No. H75-151
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
vVan-S-Aviation Corp. v. Hawthorne Civil Action
Aero Sales, et al. No. CA75-678
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
Van-S-Aviation Corp. v. Piper Civil Action
Aircraft Corp., et al. No. 73CvV6l4-wW-4