IN RE: Commodities Exchange Commission Rate Antitrust Litigation

Case MDL No. 99 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 4
- £ ) N ’
[3 . 4 Jimmy —
® FULa as Dali ry.. Bs I 8- Li;oa Tis 5
HRY -5 197;
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL FE
| oN | CLL pa
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION Coil
IN RE COMMODITIES EXCHANGE RATE )
ANTITRUST LITIGATION ) DOCKET NO. 99
OPINION AND ORDER
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM¥*,
EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER*, JOSEPH S.
LORD, III, AND STANLEY A. WEIGEL, JUDGES OF THE PANEL
PER CURIAM
\ In December, 1971 the United States commenced an action in
® the Northern District of Illinois seeking injunctive relief a.
against the Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, Inc., largest
of the commodity contract markets in the United States. The
United States alleged that the commodity broker members of the
Board of Trade and the Board of Trade combined and conspired to
fix and maintain commission rates for the trading of commodities
on that market in violation of the antitrust laws.
The initial Government suit was followed by the filing of
three private treblé damage actions. The first of these actions
was brought by plaintiff Stuart H. Savett in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania. Savett named as defendants five commodity
exchanges as representatives of a defendant class composed of all
= */ Judges Wisdom and Becker were unable to attend the Panel
hearing but have, with the consent of all parties, participated
in this decision. ,

Case MDL No. 99 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	2 of 4
v
® ,
commodity exchanges and their members. Recovery is sought in
that action on behalf of all traders in commodities future
contracts utilizing the facilities of the defendant class.
The remaining two actions were filed in the Northern
District of Illinois. One action names the Chicago Board of
Trade and many of its members as representatives of a defendant
class of brokers following the Chicago Board of Trade's sche-
dule of commissions. The allegations of antitrust violations
are similar to those in the Government suit and recovery is
* sought for all persons who paid commissions to members of the
. Board of Trade for the purchase or sale of commodities on
( that exchange. The second action contains similar allegations
but names as defendants the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and
many of its members. Recovery is sought for all those trading
on the exchange from a defendant class of exchange members.
Defendants common to the Savett action and the two Illinois
actions moved the Panel for transfer of Savett to the Northern
District of Illinois for pretrial proceedings with the other
two cases. Savett initially opposed transfer of his action,
relying mainly on the broader scope of the allegations of his
complaint. He asserted that the intra-exchange conspiracies
alleged in the two Illinois actions were only individual facets
of his action alleging a national conspiracy among all exchanges
and that the Illinois actions shared too few questions of fact
4 with his action to justify their transfer to a single district.

Case MDL No. 99 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	3 of 4
® : - 3 =
The subsequent filing of two actions in the Northern District
of Illinois has caused Savett to withdraw his opposition. One
of those actions’ asserts	a national conspiracy among commodity
exchanges to violate the antitrust laws by the setting of
commission rates and raises questions of fact identical to those
in the Savett case. The second action? is brought against the
Board of Trade of the City of Chicago and duplicates the allega-
tions of the earlier filed complaints against that defendant in
the Northern District of Illinois. All parties have expressed
" their desire to have all five actions transferred to the Northern
. District of Illinois for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
C proceedings. The papers submitted and the oral argument on
this matter indicate that all actions involve common questions
of fact and that transfer would serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and further the just and efficient conduct
of the litigation.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action pending in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania and listed on the attached
Schedule A be, and the same hereby is, transferred to the
Northern District of Illinois and, with the consent of that
court, assigned to the Honorable William J. Bauer for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C.
§1407 with the actions pending in that district and listed on
the attached Schedule A.
[
© I/Fuller	v. Board of Trade of City of Chicago, N.D. Illinois,Civil Action No. 72 C 747.
2/ Wengert	v. Board of Trade of City of Chicago, N.D. Illinois,
Civil Action No. 72 C 750.

Case MDL No. 99 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	4 of 4
Sg.
SCHEDULE A DOCKET NO. 99
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Stuart H. Savett v. Board of Trade Civil Action
of the City of Chicago, Inc., et al. No. 71-3029
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Gladys Arenson, et al. Vv. The Civil Action
Chicago Mercantile Exchange, et al. No. 71 C 854
Gladys Arenson, et al. v. Board
of Trade of the City of Chicago, Civil Action
Inc., et al. No. 71 C 855
John G. Fuller, etc. v. Board of Trade Civil Action
of the City of Chicago, et al. No. 72 C 747
‘Stan Wengert, et al. v. The Board of Civil Action
@r:ace of the City of Chicago No. 72 C 750