IN RE: Diversified Energy Corp. Securities Litigation

Case MDL No. 595 Document 2 Filed 06/01/15 Page 1 of 3
Bric FAN DBR
® ATS RIT LEICATES	DOCKET NO. 595 Fii8
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATEER	18 1884
IN RE DIVERSIFIED ENERGY CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATIOPATRUIA DL Hei
C- LER OF Tat Frill
) TRANSFER ORDER
This litigation presently consists of eleven actlons pending in
four districts as follows: six actions in the Western District of
Texas, three actions in the District of Utah, and one action each in
the Eastern District of California and the District of New Jersey.
Before the Panel is a motion by First City National Bank of Midland
(First City), a party to all the actions, to centralize the eleven
actions in the Western District of Texas for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §1407. Respondents
to the motion include those who support transfer but favor selection
of the District of Utah as transferee forum, those who oppose
transfer, and those who oppose transfer but favor selection of the
Utah forum if the Panel nevertheless concludes that centralization is
appropriate.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, the Panel
finds that centralization in the District of Utah of all actions but
the New Jersey action will best serve the convenience of the partles
@:: witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of .the	litigation. The actions to be centralized share numerous factual
3 questions relating to the promotion, financing and sale of limited
partnership interests in oll and gas ventures organized by
Diversified Energy Corp. (DECO). Centralization of these actions is
therefore necessary in order to avoid duplication of discovery,
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the resources of
the parties, their counsel and the Judiciary. The New Jersey action,
however, is brought by persons who are not partners in any limited .
partnership involved in the other actions brought by DECO investors,
and the action is proceeding expeditiously toward trial. Movant has
failed to demonstrate the existence of sufficient common questions of
fact and remaining common discovery that would warrant centralization
of the New Jersey action with the other actions in this docket.
First City favors selection of the Western District of Texas as
transferee forum because, inter alia, 1) First City employees, whose
conduct	in the promotion and financing of the DECO interests 1s at
issue in the actions, will be found in that district along with other
witnesses and relevant documents relating to the financing of the
limited partnership interests, and 2) most of the actions are already
pending in that district. While the Western District of Texas may be
an acceptable forum, on balance we are persuaded that the District of
Utah 1s the most appropriate forum for this litigation. We note that Co

. ) Case MDL No. 595 Document 2 Filed 06/01/15 Page 2 of 3
-0- ,
‘ that district 1s the forum where a large number of the plaintiffs and
nearly all the defendants other than First City and its employees
reside, where the limited partnerships which offered the subject
partnership interests are located, where DECO (which was the promoter
of the partnerships and general partner in each limited partnership)
is located, where many witnesses (including DECO's officers) reside,
and where many relevant documents are likely to be located.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407
of the action listed on the attached Schedule A and pending in the
District of New Jersey be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, the
remaining actions listed on the attached Schedule A and pending
outside the District of Utah be, and the same hereby are, transferred
to the District of Utah, and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to the Honorable Aldon J. Anderson for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions pending in that
district and listed on Schedule A.
A THE PANEL:
i"addr @. Cf,Andrew A. Caffrey ‘
Chairman

Case MDL No. 595 Document 2 Filed 06/01/15 Page 3 of 3
SCHEDULE A
MDL-595 -- IN RE DIVERSIFIED ENERGY CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION	=e 272 ~~ Bh Joy nodblal BNARUY CURE, OBCURITIES LITIGATION
) DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
George R. Baumgardner, et al. v. First City National Bank of
Midland, Texas, et al., C.A. No. 83-4631-A
DISTRICT OF UTAH
Falcon Construction, Inc., et al. v. First City National Bank of
Midland, et al., C.A. No. C84-00LOW
Diversified Energy/Intermountain Capital Private Drilling Fund
1981-4, et al., C.A. No. CB4-0041A
Arun V, Bidwal, et al. v. DECO Ener Private Drilling Fund
1981-1, et al., C.A. No. C8L-0062W
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
G. Ronald Gerbin et al. v. First City National Bank of Midiand,
Texas, et al., C.A. No. CIV-83-695MLS
C WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXASEdward R. Van Vliet, et al. v. First City National Bank of
Midiand, et al., C.A. No. MO-BE-CA-3I
First City National Bank of Midland v. Diversified
Energy/Combined Capital Private Driliing Fund 1981-A, et al.,C.A. No. MO-83-CA-21
First City National Bank of Midland v. DECO Ener Private
Drilling Fund 1981-11, et al., C.A. No. MO-83-CA-213
First City National Bank of Midland v. DECO Private Drilling Fund
1981-1, et al., C.A. No. MO-83-CA-216
First City National Bank of Midland v. DECO/DCA Private Drillin
Fund Tobo-T, et al., C.A. No. MO-83-CA-215
First City National Bank of Midland v. Diversified
Energy/Intermountain Capital Private Drilling Fund 1981-4, et
al., C.A. No. MO-34-CA-1