IN RE: Houston Oil Trust Securites Litigation

Case MDL No. 625 Document 2 Filed 06/01/15 Page 1 of 3
: nIpICIAL FRCL Uh
i ge Te Toe] LTIGATEN
TTR
® DOCKET NO. 625 APR 18 1385
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION A 1). Fou sinsIN RE HOUSTON OI ELERK OF TRE PAWL	L TRUST SECURITIES LITIGATION =
~ TRANSFER ORDER#
* This litigation consists of 21 actions pending in two federal
» districts: twenty actions in the Southern District of Texas and one
. action in the District of Nevada. Before the Panel 1s a motion by
Tenneco, Inc. (Tenneco) and Houston 011 & Minerals Corporation (HOM) ,
« defendants in all actions, to transfer, pursuant to 28 U.s.cC. §1407,the Nevada action to the Southern District of Texas for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings with actions pending there. TheNevada plaintiff opposes transfer.
On the basis of the papers filed,’ the Panel finds that the
actions in this litigation involve common questions of fact and that
centralization under Section 1407 in the Southern District of Texas
will best serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and
promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. All
actions arise from the formation of Houston 011 Trust (Trust) in"
connection with the April 24, 1981 merger of Tenneco and HOM and
involve allegations that defendants violated various federal
~ curities laws by, inter alia, 1) overstating in the prospectus the
-imated oil and gas reserves and projected revenues attributable to
st; and 2) engaging in a course of conduct designed to mislead the
~ nvesting public as to the quality and quantity of oil and gas
® reserves attributable to Trust. Centralization under Section 1407 is
desirable in order to avoid duplicative discovery, prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel and the Judiciary.
We are persuaded that the Southern District of Texas is the
appropriate transferee forum. We note that 1) Tenneco, HOM, and Trust
as well as two other defendants have their headquarters and principal
places of business in Houston; 2) virtually all their directors and
employees who were involved with the merger live in the Houston area;
and 3) a majority of the records relating to the merger 1s kept there.
* Judge Sam C. Pointer, Jr., took no part in the decision of this	matter.
1/ The parties waived oral argument and accordingly the question of
transfer of these actions was submitted on the briefs. Rule 14,R.P.J.P.M.L., 89 F.R.D. 273, 283-84 (1981).

Case MDL No. 625 Document2 Filed 06/01/15 Page	2 of 3
- oe
to IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, C	-he action listed on the attached Schedule A and pending in the
District of Nevada be, and the same hereby is, transferred to the
Southern District of Texas and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to the Honorable Carl O. Bue for coordinated-	or consolidated
pretrial proceedings with the actions pending in that district anglisted on Schedule A. .
‘© FOR THE PANEL: t
Andrew A. Caffrey
- Chairman

) * Case MDL No. 625 Document2 Filed 06/01/15 Page	3 of 3
- Schedule A
o MDL-625 -- In re Houston 011 Trust Securities Litigation———————————=lon	011 Trust Securities Litigation
District of Nevada	————===	0! Nevada
Frank T. Koutras v. Houston 011 Trust, et al., 7C.A. No. CVR -408-BR
Southern District of Texas	. B a Me sl Ado
, Howard Fine v. Houston 011 Trust Corp., et al.,
. C.A. No. H-82-551
Esther Nemo, et aj. Vv. First International Bank in Houston, N.A.	. et al., C.A. 0. H-8>-
Anthon Barsanti, et al. v. Houston 0i1 & Minerals Cor -s et al.,	C.A. No. H- 2-55
Tillie Targoffs, et al. v. Houston 011 & Minerals Corp., et al.,	C.A. No. H- 2-555
Denco v. F. Fox Benton, Jr. et al., C.A. No. H-82-566
Frederick Rand v. Houston 011 Trust, et al., C.A. No. H-82-571
Seymour G. Beinder, et al. v. Houston Oil Trust, et al., C.A. No.	H-62-6543
Charlotte Libauer v. F. Fox Benton, Jr., et al., C.A. No. H-82-644Dr. Irvin Rosenberg, et al. v. Houston 011 Trust, et. al., C.A. No.	H-82-645
Marshall J. Danien, et al. v. Houston 011 Trust, et al., C.A. No.	H-82-
C Rose Cammer, et al. v. Houston 011 Trust, et al., C.A. No.	TH-B2-588 ————————°f—-2	‘rust, et al.
LL Morton B. Konig v. Houston 011 & Minerals Corp., et al., C.A. No.	= H-82-969
Howard Sloan, et al. v. Houston 011 & Minerals Corp., et al., C.A.	No. H-82-731 .
Beliaan Gettler, etc. v. F. Fox Benton, Jr. et al., C.A. No.	H-82-762
Patricia Snitzer, et al. v. Bear Stearns & Co., et al., C.A. No.	H-82-1585
Tillie Targoff, et al. v. Houston 011 Trust, et al., C.A. No.	H-82-1800 :
A.P.M.C. Associates, Inc., et al. v. Houston 011 & Minerals Corp.et al., C.A, No. H-82-1799
Louis B, Perillo, et al. v. Tenneco, Inc., et al., C.A. No.	H-=82-17
Arnold Arlow, et al. v. Houston 011 Trust, et al., C.A. No.	H-82-179
Oscar Hyman, et al. v. Houston 011 Trust, et al., C.A. No.	H-82-1597