stating that when considering transfer under Section 1407, the Panel “is not encumbered by considerations of venue”
How later courts described this case
- stating that when considering transfer under Section 1407, the Panel “is not encumbered by considerations of venue”
- "The Panel's statutory mandate is to weigh the interests of all the plaintiffs and all the defendants, and to consider multidistrict litigation as a whole in light of the purposes of the law."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WEINFELD, Judge, concurring.
I concur in the decision of my brethren that the antitrust actions and the securities action which are pending in districts other than the Eastern District of Missouri should, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 , be transferred to that district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the action pending in that district and that transfer pursuant to Section 1407 of the declaratory judgment action should be denied. I also agree with my brethren that the venue provision of the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. § 94 , does not prohibit transfer under Section 1407 of actions in which national banks are parties. Unlike my brethren, however, I am of the view that the Panel should adopt as policy the Supreme Court’s recent recognition in Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co., 426 U.S. 148 , 96 S.Ct. 1989 , 48 L.Ed.2d 540 (1976), that the purpose of 12 U.S.C. § 94 was to prevent interruption in the business of national banks that might result from their records being sent to distant counties, 426 U.S. at 156 , 96 S.Ct. 1989 . Accordingly, I would include in the Panel’s transfer order in this litigation a provision that with respect to the national bank defendants any discovery or inspection of their records shall be had only in each bank’s home district.