385 F.Supp. 586 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. 1974), 161, In re U.S. Financial Securities Litigation
|Citation:||385 F.Supp. 586|
|Party Name:||In re U.S. FINANCIAL SECURITIES LITIGATION. Societe Generale de Banque, et al. v. Toudhe, Ross & Co., S.D. New York, Civil Action No. 74 Civ. 3120.|
|Case Date:||December 02, 1974|
|Court:||United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation|
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.
OPINION AND ORDER
The Panel previously transferred all actions in this litigation to the Southern District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable Howard B. Turrentine for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. 1 Since the above-captioned action appeared to involve factual issues common to the previously-transferred actions, the Panel ordered the parties to show cause why this action should not likewise be transferred to the Southern District of California. Only plaintiffs oppose transfer.
We find that this tag-along action involves questions of fact common to the actions previously transferred to the Southern District of California and that its transfer to that district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings will best serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
This action was instituted in the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff purports to represent a class consisting of holders of nine percent bearer debentures issued by U.S. Financial Overseas (USFO) and guaranteed by its parent corporation, U.S. Financial (USF). Touche, Ross & Co., the only defendant in the action, is charged with violating the federal securities laws by improperly auditing USF and by certifying false financial statements of USF.
Plaintiffs contend that there are substantial differences between this action and the previously-transferred actions, which militate against the transfer of this action to the Southern District of California. They assert that they will derive little benefit from transfer because their discovery will be directed exclusively toward Touche, Ross and will focus on an earlier period of time than that involved in the previously-transferred actions. In addition, plaintiffs argue that, unlike the other actions in this litigation...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP