IN RE: McDonnell Douglas Corporation Securities Litigation

Case MDL No. 448 Document 2 Filed 05/18/15 Page 1 of 3
| JUBILIAL PANEL OH Po |
: HULTDISTRIST LIGATION Fo EISFILED :
| FEB ~2 193 ApDOCKET NO. 448 os
PATRICIA D. Hol asn ; oo
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITEGERKON THE PANFL A
IN RE McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION
TRANSFER ORDER
Presently before the Panel is a motion, pursuant to Co SR
28 U.S.C. §1407, brought by Morton Funk (Funk), the plaintiff Co IEE
in one action listed on the attached Schedule A, for transfer -
of the action pending in the Southern District of New York oo
and the action pending in the Eastern District of Missouri : :
to the Eastern District of New York for coordinated or consoli-
dated pretrial proceedings with the action pending there.
All responding parties agree on the desirability of Co
or do not oppose transfer. The only dispute concerns the ~ So
selection of the transferee district. Plaintiff in the LEE 2 oe
action pending in the Southern District of New York joins NE
Funk in urging centralization in the Eastern District of :
New York. All defendants and plaintiff in the Missouri
action favor centralization in the Eastern District of Missouri. oo
We find that these actions involve common questions
of fact and that centralization of the actions under Section Ll
1407 in the Eastern District of Missouri will best serve IE
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote :
the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. :
Those parties favoring the Eastern District of New no oo
York as the transferee district argue chiefly that "significant Ql
third-party documents and witnesses [relating to securities SN
analysts and brokerage firms are] located in the New York SEE
area," and that the Eastern District of New York is the ERT SEE
forum favored by a majority of the plaintiffs and their we - Bh
counsel. The defendants and the Missouri plaintiff, on Co
the other hand, favor centralization in the Eastern District a
of Missouri principally on the grounds that: (1) the corporate :
headquarters and principal place of business of McDonnell
Douglas Corporation (McDonnell Douglas), a defendant in
two of the actions, are in St. Louis, fourteen of the 22
individual defendants live in the St. Louis area, and therefore CL
many relevant documents and witnesses are located there; 0 i
(2) important third-party documents and witnesses from brokerage .
firms are located in St. Louis; (3) recent statistics contained
in the Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts reveal that this litigation
could proceed to trial more expeditiously in the Eastern
District of Missouri than in either the Eastern District :
of New York or the Southern District of New York; and (4)
the Eastern District of Missouri is centrally located for
a litigation that is national in scope.

~ Case MDL No. 448 Document 2 Filed 05/18/15 Page 2 of 3
~ De
il We are persuaded that the Eastern District of Missouri
is the most appropriate transferee forum for this litigation
for the reasons set forth by the parties favoring the Eastern
District of Missouri.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1407, the actions listed on the attached Schedule A and
pending in the Eastern District of New York and the Southern
District of New York be, and the same hereby are, transferred
to the Eastern District of Missouri and, with the consent
of that court, assigned to the Honorable William L. Hungate
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with
the action pending in that district and listed on Schedule
A.
FOR THE PANEL:
Andrew A. Caffrey
Chairman

~ Case MDL No. 448 Document 2 Filed 05/18/15 Page 3 of 3 oo
SCHEDULE A
® Docket No. 448 -- In re McDonnell Douglas Corporation SecuritiesLitigation
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW.YORK
Morton Funk v. James McDonnell, et al. civil Action
No. 80 CIV 1216
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Robert A. Epstein, etc. v. David Arnold, Civil Action
et al. No. 80 CIV 5620
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
Roger Pearlman v. McDonnell Douglas Civil Action }
Corporation, et al. No. 80-1020C-4