IN RE: Letterman Brothers Energy Program Securities Litigation

Case MDL No. 560 Document2 Filed 06/02/15 Page 1 of3
he JUDICIAL PANEL ON
' MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
: FILED
¥ DOCKET NO. 560 :
® KOY 25 1983
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATIORATRICIA D. How aioIN RE LETTERMAN BROTHERS ENERGY PROGRAM SECURITIES r1r16ARRERK OF THE PANEL
TRANSFER ORDER*
This litigation consists of ten actions pending in three
districts as follows: six actions in the District of Kansas, three
actions in the Northern District of Texas, and one action in the
Northern District of California. Presently before the Panel is a
motion of a group of interrelated parties (the Letterman parties) to
centralize all actions in the Northern District of Texas under 28
U.S.C. §1407. BancTexas Dallas N.A. (BancTexas), a defendant in the
Texas actions, does not oppose transfer of the California action but
does oppose transfer of the Kansas actions. The plaintiffs in the
California action oppose transfer of thelr action.
On the basis of the papers f11ed,l/ the Panel finds that transfer
of only the California action under Section 1407 to the Northern
District of Texas will best serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the 1litig-
ation. The California and Texas actions share numerous factual
uestions relating to the promotion, financing and sale of limited
@:: Interests in oll and gas drilling programs offered and	anaged by Letterman parties. Centralization of these actions is
therefore necessary in order to avoid duplication of discovery,
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the resources of
the parties, their counsel and the judiciary. The Kansas actions,
however, do not include allegations of violation of the federal or
state securities laws, are basically actions in debt brought against
particular Letterman energy programs, and have been stayed by court
order as a result of the bankruptcy of the corporation that is the
sole plaintiff in each action. Movants have failed to demonstrate the
existence of sufficient common questions of fact and time-consuming
discovery that would warrant centralization of the Kansas actions with
the other actions in this docket.
We are persuaded that the Northern District of Texas is the
appropriate transferee forum for this litigation. We note that three
of the four actions are already pending there, and that many witnesses
and documents are likely to be found in Texas, where the operator of
the oll and gas programs, the bank that lent funds to the operator and
was involved in financing the programs, and certain petroleum
engineers and geologists are located.
*¥ Judge Milton Pollack took no part in the decision of this matter.
Q The parties waived oral argument and accordingly the question of	ransfer of these actions was submitted on the briefs. Rule 14,
R.P.J.P.M.L., 89 F.R.D. 273, 283-84 (1981).

Case MDL No. 560 Document 2 Filed 06/02/15 Page 2 of 3 .
» 1
| -2-
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $1407, ®the action listed on the attached Schedule A and pending in the
Northern District of California be, and the same hereby is,
transferred to the Northern District of Texas and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Robert M. Hill
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the
actions pending in that district and listed on the attached
Schedule A.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407,
transfer of the actions listed on the attached Schedule A and
pending in the District of Kansas be, and the same hereby is,
denied.
FOR THE PANEL:
; Andrew A. Caffrey
Chairman

: Case MDL No. 560 Document2 Filed 06/02/15 Page	3 of 3
C Schedule AMDL-560 -- In re Letterman Brothers Energy Program Securities
Litigation
Northern District of California
Richard J. Stuart, et al. v. Letterman Brothers Energy Program
1980-2, et al., N.D. California, C.A. No. C82-3700 EFL
Northern District of Texas
Donald A. Drake, et al. v. Letterman Transaction Services, Inc.,
et al., N.D. Texas, C.A. No. CA 3-82-1032-D
Letterman Brothers Energy Program 1980-2, et al. v. BancTexas
Dallas, N.A., et al., N.D. Texas, C.A. No. CA-3-83-0051-C
Richard J. Stuart, et al. v. Letterman Brothers Energy Program
1980-2, et al., N.D. Texas, C.A. No. CA-3-83-1063-H
District of Kansas
Wells-Battelstein Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Letterman Brothers Energy
C Program 1980-2, D. Kansas, C.A. No. 83-1087E Wells-Battelstein Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Letterman Brothers Energy
Program 1980-10, D. Kansas, C.A. No. 83-1090
Wells-Battelstein Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Letterman Brothers Energy
Program 1981-3, D. Kansas, C.A. No. 83-1092
Wells-Battelstein 0il & Gas, Inc. v. Letterman Brothers Energy
Program 1981-6, D. Kansas, C.A. No. 83-1088
Wells-Battelstein 011 & Gas, Inc. v. Letterman Brothers Energy
Program 1981-8, D. Kansas, C.A. No. 83-1089
Wells-Battelstein Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Letterman Brothers Energy
Program 1981-9, D. Kansas, C.A. No. 83-1091