IN RE: TERA Corporation Securities Litigation

| Cw Case MDL No. 616 Document2 Filed 06/01/15 Page	1 of 3| : JUDICIAL PANE
! MULTI STC Taio
; FILED
| Roy
® DOCKET NO. 616 27 1%so PATRICIA	D HOWARD
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION. CLERXOF THE FANEL
IN RE-TERA CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION _ :
| s TRANSFER ORDER
This litigation consists of four actions pending in two
. districts as follows: three actions in the Northern District of
California and one action in the Northern District of Illinois.
Presently before the Panel is a motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
‘ §1407, by TERA Corporation (TERA) and nine other parties that are
defendants in some or all of the actions for transfer of the
Illinois action to the Northern District of California for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions
pending there. The plaintiffs in the three actions pending in the
Northern District of California state that they neither support nor
oppose the Section 1407 motion, but they favor selection of the
Northern District of California as transferee forum if the Panel
concludes that centralization is appropriate in this docket.
Plaintiffs in the Illinois action oppose transfer. Alternatively,
the Illinois action plaintiffs favor centralization in the Northern
District of Illinois if the Panel determines to order centraliza-
tion. Alexander Grant & Co. (Alexander Grant), an accounting firm
C named in the Illinois action, requests the Panel to defer ruling on	- transfer until the Illinois court has ruled on Alexander Grant's :
: motion to dismiss, and/or, if the Panel orders transfer in this
docket, to separate the claims against Alexander Grant from the
other claims in the Illinois action so that the claims against
Alexander Grant can be adjudicated in Illinois.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, the
Panel finds that these four actions involve common questions of
fact and that centralization under 28 U.S.C. §1407 in the Northern
District of California will best serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
the litigation. All four actions involve allegations of federal
securities law violations in connection with the sale of TERA
stock and share factual questions concerning 1) the accuracy and
completeness of TERA offering materials, and 11) factors resulting
in the drop in market value in TERA's shares. Centralization under
Section 1407 is necessary in order to eliminate duplicative
discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the
resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.
We see no reason why Alexander Grant's motion for dismissal
cannot be decided by the transferee judge, nor are we persuaded
that the claims against Alexander Grant do not involve factual
questions common to other claims 1n the actions in this docket. It
C may be, on further refinement of the issues and close scrutiny by	the transferee judge, that the claims against Alexander Grant can

r. © + Case MDL No. 616 Document 2 Filed 06/01/15 Page 2 of 3
-2-
| be remanded to the Northern District of Illinois in advance of the
i oo other claims in the Illinois action. But we are unwilling, on the
{i ° * basis of the record before us, to make such a determination at this
! time. Should the transferee Judge deem remand of the claims
against Alexander Grant appropriate, procedures are available
whereby this may be accomplished with a minimum of delay. See Rule
11, R.P.J.P.M.L., 89 F.R.D. 273, 280-82 (1981). -
We are persuaded that the Northern District of California is
the appropriate forum for this litigation. We note, inter alia,
that 1) TERA was headquartered there and most of the Individual
defendants reside there, thus making it likely that many relevant ,
witnesses and documents will be found there; 2) TERA's audit was
| performed by the San Francisco office of Alexander Grant; and 3)
three of the four actions are already pending in the Northern !
District of California. :
: 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 Illinois be, and same hereby 1s, transferred
: ~~ to the Northern District of California and, with the consent of
: that court, assigned to the Honorable William H. Orrick, Jr., for
: coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions
} pending in that district and listed on Schedule A.
|| \ F THE PANEL:
LO
= = has’ CC.
Andrew A. Caffrey
Chairman

Case MDL No. 616 Document 2 Filed 06/01/15 Page 3 of 3
® SCHEDULE A
MDL-616 -- IN RE TERA CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION -.	—_— Ar ON OBCURITIES LITIGATION
oC Northern District of California	p —_— so Pclt of Lalifornia
. William B. Weinberger, et al. v. Michael John Keaton, et al.,	. C.A. No C-8B4-1234=WHO
y Jonathan Andron, et al. v. Michael John Keaton, et al.,C.A. No. C-Bi-I557-wmo
Sci Tech Investment Partners, et al. v. Michael John Keaton, et	al., C.A. No. C- - 97 -WHO
Northern District of Illinois	— = Io PICt of lillinols
The Northern Trust Co., etc., et al. v. TERA Corp., et al.,Cc . A . No . ~-C=3 1 7