In re Com. Oil/Tesoro Petro. Sec. Litigation, 347.

Citation458 F. Supp. 225
Decision Date20 September 1978
Docket NumberNo. 347.,347.
PartiesIn re COMMONWEALTH OIL/TESORO PETROLEUM SECURITIES LITIGATION.
CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Before JOHN MINOR WISDOM, Chairman, and EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, STANLEY A. WEIGEL, ANDREW A. CAFFREY*, and ROY W. HARPER, Judges of the Panel.

OPINION AND ORDER

PER CURIAM.

I. BACKGROUND

This litigation consists of four actions pending in two districts — three in the Southern District of New York and one in the Western District of Texas. The actions are all brought under, inter alia, the federal securities laws. The major defendants in these actions are Commonwealth Oil Refining Company (CORCO), TESORO Petroleum Corporation (TESORO) and certain present and former officers and directors of CORCO and/or TESORO. TESORO and eight of the individual defendants are named in all four actions, one individual defendant is named in three actions, CORCO and five individual defendants are named in two actions, and seven individual defendants are named in only one action. Additional defendants, each in only one action, include CORCO's accountants and a stockbrokerage that handled a 1975 tender offer pursuant to which TESORO purchased 5.5 million shares of CORCO stock.

These four actions center around that tender offer; the subsequent disclosure by CORCO of financial difficulties, eventually leading in March 1978 to the filing by CORCO of a voluntary petition under Chapter XI of the Bankruptcy Act in the Western District of Texas1 and a resulting substantial decrease in the price of TESORO and CORCO securities. The specific allegations in each action are as follows:

A. New York Actions

1) BouchardPlaintiffs are shareholders of CORCO. They bring this action as a derivative action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23.1, and as a class action pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 23 on behalf of the following two classes: 1) all holders of CORCO common shares as of June 6, 1975 who did not tender those shares to TESORO on that date; and 2) all purchasers of CORCO common stock after June 6, 1975. Defendants are CORCO; TESORO; E. F. Hutton & Co., the stockbrokerage that handled the purchase of 5.5 million shares of CORCO by TESORO; and twenty present or former officers and directors of CORCO and/or TESORO.

The factual allegations made by the plaintiffs in Bouchard are as follows:

a) During April 1975 TESORO made a tender offer for 5.5 million shares of CORCO at $11.50 per share. Norman C. Keith, CORCO's chief executive officer and the largest single shareholder in CORCO, publicly opposed the offer as inadequate, expressing an optimistic outlook for CORCO's future following the resolution of past financial difficulties. CORCO also instituted suit to block the offer.

b) During May 1975 TESORO raised its offer from $11.50 to $14.25 per share. In a joint press release, TESORO and CORCO stated that CORCO had rejected other proposed tender offers; that, upon completion of the tender offer, a new board of directors for CORCO would be nominated in which TESORO would have a majority of one; that TESORO and CORCO would begin planning a merger between the two companies; and that Keith would remain as a director of and senior consultant to CORCO and would become a director of TESORO.

c) During June 1975 TESORO completed its tender offer, acquiring approximately 37 percent of all outstanding shares of CORCO.

d) During July 1975 a number of new members were appointed to the board of directors of CORCO with the result that TESORO was thereafter in full and effective control of CORCO.

e) During May 1976 CORCO's corporate headquarters were moved from New York, New York to San Antonio, Texas.

f) During December 1976 TESORO and CORCO announced that the contemplated merger between the two companies would be deferred until CORCO could demonstrate its financial solvency.

Plaintiffs further allege that CORCO's financial condition was bleak because of commitments to sell refined petroleum at prices below those at which CORCO could purchase and refine crude petroleum; that the CORCO management misrepresented the financial condition and future earning prospects of CORCO in connection with TESORO's tender offer; that Keith, in exchange for dropping his opposition to the TESORO tender offer, arranged for and has received excessive remuneration and expense funds in comparison to the services he has performed for CORCO; that the defendants failed to disclose fully the terms of the contract made with Keith; that the CORCO management failed to disclose the terms of competing proposals made at the time of the TESORO tender offer; that the defendants falsely stated that a merger between CORCO and TESORO was under contemplation; that TESORO, upon gaining control of CORCO, discovered the true financial condition of CORCO and adopted the false representations of the previous management to TESORO's own benefit; and that TESORO, also upon gaining control of CORCO, discovered the previous mismanagement of CORCO and continued that mismanagement until the true financial condition of CORCO finally became known during early 1977, when CORCO was on the verge of bankruptcy.

The derivative claims are brought 1) to recoup the allegedly excessive sums spent on Keith, 2) to recover damages allegedly suffered by CORCO from the rejection by CORCO's management of competing proposals made at the time of TESORO's tender offer, and 3) to recover other damages allegedly suffered by CORCO. The class action claims are brought to recover damages allegedly suffered by members of the two classes as a result of substantial declines in the price of CORCO stock caused by defendants' misconduct.

2) LewisPlaintiff is an individual purchaser of CORCO securities who seeks to represent a class comprised of all purchasers of CORCO securities between April 22, 1975 and April 1, 1977. Defendants are CORCO, TESORO and fifteen present or former officers and directors of CORCO and/or TESORO. The factual contentions made by the plaintiff in Lewis are substantially the same as the factual contentions made by the plaintiffs in Bouchard. Plaintiff alleges that, as a result of the misrepresentations of defendants concerning the financial status of CORCO, plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff class were induced to purchase securities of CORCO at artificially inflated prices and suffered substantial damages when the true financial condition of CORCO became known and the price of CORCO securities dropped.

3) JosephPlaintiff is an individual who purchased shares of stock in TESORO on December 31, 1976. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of all purchasers of shares of TESORO from November 1975 through June 7, 1977. Defendants are TESORO and nine present officers and directors of CORCO and TESORO. Plaintiff alleges that, soon after TESORO completed its tender offer and acquired control of CORCO, TESORO discovered that CORCO was in desperate financial condition, that CORCO was likely to suffer substantial operating losses, and that as a result the shares TESORO had acquired had a value much lower than the price it had paid for them. TESORO did not disclose this scenario to its shareholders or to the public, plaintiff alleges, and continued to list its investment in CORCO at the amount it had paid for the shares. By failing to write down the value of its investment in CORCO, plaintiff alleges, TESORO grossly overstated its income and assets in its financial reports. Plaintiff alleges that he and the members of the plaintiff class thereafter suffered damages when TESORO disclosed that it was substantially writing down the value of its investment in CORCO, and TESORO shares suffered a significant decline in price as a result.

B. Texas Action

Plaintiff is an individual who purchased a number of shares of CORCO stock during July 1976 and later sold those shares at a loss. This plaintiff seeks to represent a class comprised of all purchasers of CORCO stock between February 17, 1976 and December 31, 1976. Defendants include eleven present or former officers and directors of CORCO and/or TESORO; Deloitte, Haskins & Sells, CORCO's accountants; and TESORO. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants conspired to conceal from the public adverse information concerning the financial condition of CORCO, that the defendants inflated the assets and profits of CORCO, that the defendants failed to disclose substantial operating losses suffered by CORCO, and that, as a result of these activities, the price of CORCO shares was artificially inflated. Plaintiff also alleges that CORCO's accountants failed to discover and disclose the true financial condition of CORCO. When the true financial condition of CORCO became known, plaintiff alleges, the price of CORCO stock declined substantially and plaintiff and members of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Johnson v. Micron Technology, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • 24 Enero 2005
    ...and transferor courts are empowered to do so when the matter is before them. See id.; see also In re Commonwealth Oil/Tesoro Petroleum Sec. Litigation, 458 F.Supp. 225 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1978). "A transfer under section 1407 becomes effective when the order granting the transfer is filed in ......
  • Bolton v. Tesoro Petroleum Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • 2 Noviembre 1982
    ...Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in transferring several similar cases to Texas four years ago. See In re Commonwealth Oil/Tesoro Securities Litigation, 458 F.Supp. 225 (J.P.M.L.1978). While we have considered the Judicial Panel's action, we note that defendants have not indicated that tho......
  • Matter of Hawaii Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii
    • 23 Julio 1980
    ...nor In re Four Seasons Securities Laws Litigation, 328 F.Supp. 221 (Jud.Pan. Mult.Lit. 1975) nor In re Com. Oil/Tesoro Petro. Sec. Litigation, 458 F.Supp. 225 (Jud. Pan.Mult.Lit. 1978), nor Stirling Homex Corporation, 388 F.Supp. 567 (Jud.Pan.Mult. Lit. 1975) and 388 F.Supp. 572 (Jud.Pan. M......
  • IN RE MOTION PICTURE LICENSING ANTITRUST LIT., 366.
    • United States
    • Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
    • 3 Abril 1979
    ...by the strong commonality of distributors as defendants in these actions. See, e. g., In re Commonwealth Oil/Tesoro Petroleum Securities Litigation, 458 F.Supp. 225, 229 (Jud. Pan.Mult.Lit.1978). Moreover, movants have represented to us that discovery already conducted in some of these acti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT