IN RE: D.H. Baldwin Debentures Due 1994 Securities LItigation

Case MDL No. 606 Document 2 Filed 06/01/15 Page 1 of 2
JUDICIAL PANCL ONMULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
. ] FILED	DOCKET NO. 606 OCT 16 1984
BEFORE, THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATIONATRICIA D. 10 us	LERK CF THe PAKREL
IN RE D. H. BALDWIN DEBENTURES DUE 1994 SECURITIES LITIGATION
TRANSFER ORDER
This litigation consists of two actions, filed in the District of Arkansas and the
Southern District of Ohio, respectively. Presently before the Panel is a motion, pursuantto 28 U.S.C. §1407, by Edward D. Jones & Company (Jones), the defendant in one action and
a co-defendant in the other, to transfer the Arkansas action to the Southern District of
Ohio for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the action pending there.
Plaintiffs in the Ohio action support the motion. Plaintiffs in the Arkansas action
oppose transfer.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, the Panel finds that these two
actions involve common questions of fact and that centralization under 28 U.S.C. §1407 in
the Southern District of Ohio will best serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
. and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Both actions arise out of
the sale in 1982 of $100 million in debentures issued by D. H. Baldwin Co. (Baldwin), a
sale for which Jones was the lead underwriter. Fach action is predicated on the con-
tention that adverse information concerning Baldwin and affiliated companies was not
disclosed, in violation of securities laws, to purchasers of the debentures. Moreover,
overlapping class certifications have been sought in each actlon. Centralization under
section 1407 is thus necessary in order to eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent
_ inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counselA and the judiciary. :
We are persuaded that the Southern District of Ohio is the appropriate forum for this
litigation. Ve note that: 1) records and employees of Baldwin, Baldwin's parent, and
Baldwin's accountants will be found in the metropolitan Cincinnati area, where Baldwin and
its parent are headquartered; 2) bankruptcy proceedings of Baldwin and its parent are
occurring in that district; and 3) the judge assigned the constituent action in that
district has already acquired a familiarity with many of the facts and issues involved in
these actions as a result of presiding over related actions involving securities fraud
allegations in connection with the sale of stock of Raldwin's parent.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, the action listed on the
attached Schedule A and pending in the District of Arkansas be, and the same hereby is,
transferred to the Southern District of Ohio and, with the consent of that court, assigned
to the Honorable David S. Porter for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with
the action pending in that district and listed on Schedule A.
FOR ‘iif PANEL: )
vem dW /_. Andrew A. Caffrey
C i Chairman

i Case MDL No. 606 Document 2 Filed 06/01/15 Page 2 of 2
® SCHEDULF, A
MDL-606 -- In re D.H. Baldwin Debentures Due 1994 Securities Litigation
Eastern District of Arkansas
Richard Mobley, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., C.A. No. LR-C-84-403
Southern District of Ohio
Ralph Bedel, et al. v. Morley P. Thompson, et al., C.A. No. C-1-83-1990
! [4
@
@®