IN RE: Colocotronis Tanker Securities Litigation

Pf tfese MDL No. 264 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 1 of 6
. MULT . #, ) nL
® BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL IRE
on OCT -7 197°MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION i=7 15378
IN RE COLOCOTRONIS TANKER ) DOCKELR, HQ: 26:2 2)SECURITIES LITIGATION ) TE
OPINION AND ORDER
BEFORE JOHN MINOR WISDOM, CHAIRMAN,* AND EDWARD WEINFELD,
EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH S. LORD, III,*
STANLEY A. WEIGEL,* AND ANDREW A. CAFFREY, JUDGES OF THE
PANEL
PER CURIAM
This litigation involves six actions pending in
three districts: three in the Southern District of New
York, two in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and one
in the Southern District of Texas. These actions arise
_ from the default on loans made by European-American Banking
Corporation to a number of companies engaged in the charter-
hire of oil tankers. Each company operated one tanker, and
the companies were jointly managed	by the Colocotronis family. :
The plaintiff in each action is a bank that extended funds
as a participant in European-american's loans to the Colo-
cotronis companies. Five of the six plaintiffs were involved
in loans to two or more of the borrowers.
The actions basically allege that European-American
violated various federal and state securities laws by false and
misleading representations and omissions of material facts in
connection with sales of the loan participations. In addition,
® *although Judges Wisdom, Lord and Weigel were unable to attendthe Panel hearing, they have, with the consent of all parties,
participated in this decision.

Case MDL No. 264 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 2 of 6
’ - 2 ~- . ®
each action charges European-American with common law fraud
and breach of common law fiduciary duties allegedly owed to
plaintiffs with regard to the participations. European-
American is a defendant in all six actions and is the sole
defendant in five of them. One of the New York actions
also includes as a defendant Deutsche Bank, a German banking
institution that owns approximately twenty percent of the
stock of Furopean-american< This action alleges that
Deutsche Bank conspired with and aided and abetted European-
American in violating federal and state securities statutes
and additionally seeks to hold Deutsche Bank liable by
virtue of its alleged control over European-American. |
Defendant European-American moves the Panel for @
an order transferring the Pennsylvania and Texas actions
to the Southern District of New York for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1407. The only party opposing the motion is defendant
Deutsche Bank. Should the Panel find that transfer is |
appropriate, however, this defendant favors the Southern
District of New York as the transferee district.
We find that these actions raise common questions
of fact and that their transfer to the Southern District-
of New York under Section 1407 will best serve the convenience
1/This action also originally included another German bank as
a defendant, Deutsche Schiffahrtsbank A.G., but that defendant
has since been dismissed. ([

Case MDL No. 264 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	3 of 6
: : - 3 -
¢® of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation.
Defendant Deutsche Bank. opposes the motion for the
reason that the claims against it are unique and therefore
should be kept separate from the rest of the litigation.
Defendant also asserts that it intends to move for dismissal
because the district court lacks in personam jurisdiction over it and
that resolution of this threshold issue may be unduly delayed
if it is required to participate in coordinated or consoli- :
dated pretrial proceedings.
These arguments are not persuasive. The actions
in this litigation clearly involve common questions of fact,
particularly regarding what European-American learned or
® should have learned through its credit analysis and inves-
tigation of the shipping companies that were part of the
Colocotronis group. Thus, transfer under Section 1407 is
necessary in order to prevent duplication of discovery, |
eliminate the possibility of conflicting pretrial rulings,
and conserve the efforts of the parties, the witnesses and the
judiciary. Moreover, because the action to which Deutsche
Bank is a party would be pending in the transferee district
regardless of the transfer we are herewith ordering, we
believe that any allegedly unique issues relating to Deutsche
Bank are more properly addressed to the transferee judge.
~ The transferee judge, of course, has the broad discretion to
®

Case MDL No. 264 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	4 of 6
PEARY i —- 4 —~
design. a pretrial program that will accommodate the needs ®
of each party for any unique discovery or judicial attention
concurrently with the conduct of common pretrial matters.
See In re Republic National-Realty Equities Securities Liti-
gation, 382 F. Supp. 1403, 1405-06 (J.P.M.L. 1974). .
No party questions the appropriateness of the Southern |
District of New York. as the transferee forum for this litigation.
We agree. Three of the six actions are already pending in
that district, and the parties represent that many of the
relevant documents and witnesses are located there.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed
on the following Schedule A and pending in districts other
than the Southern District of New York be, and the same @
hereby are, transferred to the Southern District of New York
and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honor-
able Charles H. Tenney for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 with the
actions already pending there and listed on Schedule A.
| | @

Case MDL No. 264 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 50f6
® -- SCHEDULE A DOCKET NO. 264
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
United Virginia Bank v. European-American Civil Action
Banking Corporation, et al. No. 76 Civ. 2137 (EW)
American National Bank & Trust of New Civil Action
Jersey v. European-American Banking No. 76 Civ. 2072 (CHT)
City National Bank of Detroit v. European- Civil Action
American Banking Corp. No. 76 Civ. 2202 (KID)
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
The Fidelity Bank v. European-American Civil Action
Banking Corporation No. 76-1543
First Pennsylvania Bank N.A. v. European- Civil Action
American Banking corp. No. 76-1548
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Texas Commerce Bank National Association Civil Action
® v. Buropean-American Banking Corporation No. 76-H-1058

Case MDL No. 264 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 6 of 6
J HEH di
HUTjre 0x	DOCKET NO .=264 1i:51T:
® ~I) Tioy
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT HEpygagzom	. NJ
PATER, vy
IN RE COLOCOTRONIS TANKER SECURITIES LITIGATION; Lian,tha Fake
Re: Republic National Bank of Dallas v. European-American
Banking Corp., N.D. Texas, Civil Action No. CA 3-76-1002-G
TRANSFER ORDER
It appearing that all parties to the above-captioned action
- either agree on the desirability of or do not oppose transfer
of that action from the Northern District of Texas to the
Southern District of New York for inclusion in the coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407
previously ordered in this litigation and pending in that
district before the Honorable Charles H. Tenney, and the Panel
having found upon consideration of the papers submitted that
the above-captioned action shares common questions of fact with
the previously transferred actions and that transfer will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the
just and efficient conduct of this litigation,
® IT IS ORDERED that the above-captioned action be, and the
~ same hereby is, transferred to the Southern District of New York
and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable
Charles H. Tenney for coordinated or consolidated pretrial pro-
ceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 with the actions previously
transferred to that district.
FOR THE PANEL:
Lenn und 0 5 v Ly: .	od Cran + AML, ifs y+
John Minor Wisdom
Chairman