In re King Resources Company Securities Litigation
| Decision Date | 17 November 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 79.,79. |
| Citation | 352 F. Supp. 975 |
| Parties | In re KING RESOURCES COMPANY SECURITIES LITIGATION. State of Ohio v. Crofters, Inc., et al., S.D.Ohio, Civil Action No. 72-138. |
| Court | 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.
In the initial opinion and order in this litigation, four actions brought by holders of King Resources common stock and debentures against King Resources Company and others were consolidated for coordinated pretrial proceedings in the District of Colorado. In re King Resources Company Securities Litigation, 342 F.Supp. 1179 (J.P.M.L.1972). One of the defendants in the above-captioned action pending in the Southern District of Ohio has moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for an order transferring that action to the District of Colorado for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiff State of Ohio is the only party opposed to transfer. On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, we find that transfer of the State of Ohio action to Colorado will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
The State of Ohio alleges that, in connection with its purchase of two notes of King Resources Company, having a total value of eight million dollars, defendants violated the federal securities laws by disseminating false and misleading information and withholding material information regarding the financial condition of King Resources. Similar securities laws violations are alleged against the same principal defendants in the actions already transferred to Colorado.
Despite the fact that plaintiff State of Ohio and the plaintiffs in the transferred actions purchased different securities through different marketing channels, all plaintiffs will most certainly proceed along similar lines of inquiry concerning the financial condition of King Resources and its general operations and transactions with others. This means, of course, that depositions of common witnesses will be noticed and that the documents and records of the common defendants will be subjected to intensive inspection by each group of plaintiffs. Transfer of the State of Ohio case to Colorado for participation in the coordinated pretrial proceedings is, therefore,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State of Ohio v. Peterson, Lowry, Rall, Barber & Ross
...by the Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation to the District of Colorado on November 17, 1972. See In re KRC Securities Litigation, 352 F.Supp. 975 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1972). Exhibits in the record indicate that the KRC lawsuits received extensive publicity almost from the time of the i......
-
Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Finesilver
...District of Colorado for coordinated proceedings with other cases arising out of the affairs of KRC. In re King Resources Company Securities Litigation, Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit., 352 F.Supp. 975. So far as the instant case concerns KRC, it has been stayed by an order in the bankruptcy Andersen is ......
-
Ohio v. Peterson, Lowry, Rall, Barber & Ross
...Ohio must have known is that it, too, was a participant in those consolidated proceedings. See, In re King Resources Company Securities Litigation, 352 F.Supp. 975 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1972) (transferring Ohio v. Crofters, S.D.Ohio, No. 72-138, to the United States District Court for the Distr......
-
In re King Resources Co. Securities Litigation
...pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. In re King Resources Company Securities Litigation, 342 F.Supp. 1179, 352 F.Supp. 974, 352 F.Supp. 975 (Jud. Pan.Mult.Lit.1972); 385 F.Supp. 588 (Jud. The above-captioned actions (Boucher and Crofters) involve the State of Ohio's purchase of $8,000,000 in secur......