In Re Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative & "Erisa" Litigation

TRANSFER ORDER This litigation currently consists of the 54 actions listed on the attached Schedule A and pending in five districts as follows: 40 actions now consolidated into three actions in the Southern District of Texas, eleven actions in the Eastern District of Texas, and one action each in the Eastern District of Arkansas, the Southern District of California, and the Southern District of Florida. 1 Plaintiffs in two of the Eastern District of Texas actions move the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of the actions in the Eastern District of Texas for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. None of the parties now before the Panel opposes centralization. The only real dispute concerns selection of the transferee district. In addition to the Eastern District of Texas forum proffered by movants, the Southern District of Texas and the Western District of Oklahoma have been suggested by various respondents. On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of fact and that centralization in the Southern District of Texas will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. All actions share factual questions concerning allegedly negligent and/or fraudulent conduct relating to the financial collapse of Enron Corp. (Enron). Whether the actions be brought by securities holders seeking relief under the federal securities laws, shareholders suing derivatively on behalf of Enron, or participants in Enron retirement savings plans suing for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, all actions can be expected to focus on a significant number of common events, defendants, and/or witnesses. Centralization under Section 1407 is necessary in order to eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (especially with respect to questions of class certification), and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary. We are persuaded that this litigation has a strong Texas nexus and that the appropriate transferee forum for centralized pretrial proceedings is the Southern District of Texas. We note that i) many parties, witnesses and documents will be found in Houston, where Enron is headquartered and where Enron’s auditors performed much of their audit work; ii) most of the actions have been brought in the Southern District of Texas, and the majority of responding MDL-1446 parties have expressed a preference for that forum; iii) proceedings are furthest advanced in S.D. Texas; and iv) a litigation of this scope will benefit from centralization in a major met *1377 ropolitan center that is well served by major airlines, provides ample hotel and office accommodations, and offers a well developed support system for legal services. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on the attached Schedule A and pending outside the Southern District of Texas are transferred to the Southern District of Texas and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Melinda Harmon for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions pending in that district and listed on Schedule A. SCHEDULE A Eastern District of Arkansas Stephen A. McIntyre v. Kenneth L. Lay, et al., C.A. No. 4:01-836 Southern District of California Mark E. McKinney v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 3:01-2182 Southern District of Florida Diana M. Perez v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 1:01-4951 Eastern District of Texas David R. Wortham v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 5:01-299 David Trzebucki, et al. v. Andrew S. Fastow, et al., C.A. No. 5:01-308 Duane Mceachern v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 5:01-310 William E. Davis, et al. v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 5:01-313 John Anson v. Kenneth L. Lay, et al., C.A. No. 5:01-318 Leslie H. Duncan v. Kenneth L. Lay, et al., C.A. No. 5:01-319 John Barnett v. Kenneth L. Lay, et al., C.A. No. 5:01-320 Shelly Douglass v. Kenneth L. Lay, et al., C.A. No. 5:01-321 Stephen Phillips v. Kenneth L. Lay, et al., C.A. No. 5:01-322 Phil E. Parham, et al. v. Kenneth L. Lay, et al., C.A. No. 5:01-323 Lynn Goffman, et al. v. Robert A. Belfer, et al., C.A. No. 9:01-289 Southern District of Texas Mark Newby, et al. v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:01-3624 Seth Abrams, et al. v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:01-3630 Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. Retiree Medical Benefits Trust v. Kenneth L. Lay, et al., C.A. No. 4:01-3645 Robert J. Casey, II, et al. v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:01-3647 Frank Wilson v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:01-3652 J. Michael Gottesman v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:01-3660 Avigayil Greenberg v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:01-3670 Robert Christianson v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:01-3671 Ernest Gottdiener v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:01-3681 Muriel P. Kaufman, IRA v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:01-3682 *1378 John P. McCarthy Money Purchase Plan v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:01-3686 Joseph E. Kassoway, etc. v. Andrew S. Fastow, et al., C.A. No. 4:01-3690 Michael Koroluk v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:01-3733 James Brill v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:01-3734 Elmar A. Busch v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:01-3735 Warren Pinchuck v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:01-3736 Mahin S. Mashayekh v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:01-3737 Barbara D. Lee v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:01-3789 Danielle M. Karcich, et al. v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:01-3838 Naomi Raphael v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:01-3839 Victor Ronald Frangione v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:01-3889 Patricia D. Parsons v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:01-3903 Pamela M. Tittle, et al. v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:01-3913 John Odam, et al. v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:01-3914 Frank Anthony Cammarata, III v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:01-3993 Fred Greenberg v. Robert A. Belfer, et al., C.A. No. 4:01-3998 George Nicoud v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:01-4009 Roy E. Rinard, et al. v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:01-4060 Michael P. Harney v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:01-4063 Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc. v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:01-4071 Gary W. Kemper, et al. v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:01-4089 Kenneth Franklin v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:01-4106 Enron Corp. Savings Plan v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:01-4108 Betty J. Clark v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:01-4125 Dorothy Ricketts v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:01-4128 Richard Pottratz, et al. v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:01-4150 Susan Copley v. Kenneth L. Lay, et al., C.A. No. 4:01—4168 James J. Daley, etc. v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:01-4189 Amalgamated Bank, etc. v. Kenneth L. Lay, et al., C.A. No. 4:01-4198 Catherine Stevens, et al. v. Enron Corp. Savings Plan Administrative Committee, et al., C.A. No. 4:01-4208 Footnotes [1] The motion before the Panel pertained to one additional Southern District of Texas action that has since been dismissed, City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief Plan v. Enron Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:01-3940. Accordingly, the question of Section 1407 transfer with respect to this action is moot. Additionally, the Panel has been notified of more than 40 potentially related actions now pending in federal district courts. In light of the Panel’s disposition of this docket, these additional actions will be treated as potential tag-along actions. See Rules 7.4 and 7.5, R.P.J.P.M.L., 199 F.R.D. 425, 435-36 (2001).