In re US Financial Securities Litigation, 161.

• Decision Date: 02 December 1974
• Docket Number: No. 161.,161.
• Citation: 385 F. Supp. 586
• Parties: In re U. S. FINANCIAL SECURITIES LITIGATION. Société Générale de Banque, et al. v. Touche, Ross & Co., S.D. New York, Civil Action No. 74 Civ. 3120.
• Court: Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

385 F. Supp. 586

In re U. S. FINANCIAL SECURITIES LITIGATION Société Générale de Banque, et al. v. Touche, Ross & Co., S.D. New York, Civil Action No. 74 Civ. 3120.

No. 161.

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

December 2, 1974.

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

PER CURIAM.

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, all of the acts and transactions resulting in the issuance of the securities involved in this action occurred in the Southern District of New York and, therefore, a majority of the discovery will occur there. Indeed, they contend that because of the narrow confines of their claims it would be counter-productive to transfer the action and embroil them in irrelevant discovery proceedings against the myriad of other defendants named in the actions currently pending in the transferee district. Furthermore, plaintiffs point out that they are located throughout Europe, South America and the Caribbean and urge that transfer would be enormously...