IN RE: Towner Petroleum Company Securities Litigation

: Case MDL No. 607 Document2 Filed 06/01/15 Page 1 of3 ‘
Co JUDICIAL PANEL ON
- RULTIISTRICT LITIGATION
. FILED
DOCKET NO. 607
\ OCT -S 1984
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION oo
=PATRICIA D. HO¥ Aull
IN RE TOWNER PETROLEUM COMPANY SECURITIES LITIGATION CLERK OF THE PANEL
i. ~ TRANSFER ORDER
: This litigation presently consists of twelve actions pending in
eleven districts as follows:—
Western District of Pennsylvania 2 actions
Central District of California 1 action
Northern District of Georgia 1 action
District of Maryland 1 action
District of Massachusetts 1 action
Western District of North Carolina 1 action
Eastern District of Pennsylvania 1 action
Middle District of Pennsylvania 1 action
District of South Carolina 1 action
Western District of Tennessee 1 action
Southern District of Texas 1 action
Before the Panel is a motion brought by Towner Petroleum Company
(Towner), Towner Leveraged Private Program 1981-B, Ltd. (the 1981-B
a Program) and ten Towner officers and/or directors to centralize the
o actions under 28 U.S.C. §1407 for coordinated or consolidated pretrialproceedings in the Northern District of Ohio or, in the alternative,
EO in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. With the exception of one
co-defendant in the Tennessee action that has subsequently notified
the Panel that it has reached a settlement with the plaintiff in that
action, all responding parties either agree upon or do not oppose
centralization. The only disagreement concerns selection of the
transferee forum. The plaintiffs in nine actions (the California,
Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Tennessee, Middle
District of Pennsylvania and the two Western District of Pennsylvania
actions) and the 53 plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Pennsylvaniaaction that are not plaintiffs in any other action=’ all support
selection of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as transferee forum.
Plaintiffs in the Texas action favor selection of the Southern
District of Texas as transferee forum.
I/ The original motion before the Panel included only eleven actions.
The motion was amended on July 26, 1984, to add the action pending in
the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
2/ Of a total of 67 plaintiffs in the remaining eleven actions, 59
® also plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania action.

Case MDL No. 607 Document2 Filed 06/01/15 Page	2 of 3
L -2-
On the basis of the papers filed,3/ the Panel finds that these @®actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization of
the actions under Section 1407 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
willl best serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and
promqte the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. All the
actions arise out of the sale by Towner and assorted broker dealers of
- 1imifed partnership interests in the 1981-B Program. Each action is
h predfcated on the contention that adverse information concerning
Towner and the 1981-B Program was not disclosed, in violation of
securities laws, to purchasers of the limited partnership interests.
Centralization of these actions is therefore necessary in order to
avold duplication of discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings,
and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the
Judiciary.
While a number of forums could be considered appropriate trans-
feree forums for this litigation, on balance we are persuaded that the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania is the most preferable forum. In
particular, we note that: 1) the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
action contains allegations that are broadest 1n scope; 2) of the 120
plaintiffs suing in the various actions (and residing all over the
United States), 112 have already opted to litigate in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania by filing suit there; 3) an informal 1981-B
Program Investors Committee has been organized in Philadelphia since
~ “the summer of 1983, has retained Philadelphia counsel, and has already
conducted in Philadelphia an extensive preliminary investigation of C	the facts surrounding the 1981-B Program that may be useful to the
5 litigants in this docket; and 4) the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
: has been designated-	an acceptable transferee forum by all responding
: parties except the plaintiffs in the Texas action. :
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, the
actions listed orn the attached Schedule A and pending outside the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania be, and the same hereby are,
transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Donald W.
VanArtsdalen for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with
the action pending in that district and listed on Schedule A.
FOR THE PANEL:
eelsEee ’‘ Chairman
3/ The parties waived oral argument and accordingly the question of
-ransfer of these actions under Section 1407 was submitted on the C	briefs. Rule 14, R.P.J.P.M.L., 89 F.R.D. 273, 283-84 (1981).

, Case MDL No. 607 Document2 Filed 06/01/15 Page	3 of 3 |i r
: ’ SCHEDULE A
@ -- IN RE TOWNER PETROLEUM COMPANY SECURITIES LITIGATIONCentral District of California
Arthur F. Pizzinat, et al. v. Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc., et al.,
: : . Northern District of Georgia
Terrence D. Hughe et al. v. Towner Leveraged Private Program 1981-B
Ltd., et al., C.A. No. CBL-1070A .
District of Maryland
Mary Ellen R. Brush, et al. v. Legg Mason Wood Walker, Inc., C.A. No.
District of Massachusetts
Ernest H. Augat, et al. v. Towner Leveraged Private Program 1981-B, Ltd.
et al., C.A. No. BU-1690 2
Western District of North Carolina
James H. Glenn, Jr., et al. v. Towner Leveraged Private Program 1981-8,
Ltd., C.A. No. C-C- -2 -M
C Western District of Pennsylvania
Allen J. Cousin, et al. v. Towner Leveraged Private Program 1981-B, Ltd.
et al., C.A. No. C804-1325
Paul Robert Johnston, et al. Vv. Towner Leveraged Private Program 1981-B,
td., et al., C.A. No. -1 0
Middle District of Pennsylvania
Harold Kaplan, et al. v. Towner Leveraged Private Program 1981-B, Ltd., et
al., C.A. No. B4-0935
District of South Carolina
Edward K. Pritchard, Jr., et al. v. Towner Leveraged Private Program
19 1-B, Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 3-1 -
Western District of Tennessee
John J. Shea v. Towner Leveraged Private Program 1981-B, Ltd., et al., C.A.
O. - - A ’
Southern District of Texas oo
QO... L. Davis, et al. v. Eppler, Guerin & Turner, Inc., et al., C.A. No.H-84-2053
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
John T. Synnestvedt, et al. v. Towner Petroleum Co., et al., C.A. No.
84-2635