In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation
831 F. Supp. 2d 1371
J.P.M.L.2011Background
- 44 actions involving Tribune's 2007 LBO and 2008 bankruptcy, with ~1,700 former Tribune shareholder defendants and varying levels of support for centralization.
- Centralization in the Southern District of New York is proposed to coordinate pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1407.
- The actions share common questions of fact arising from the LBO; individual questions exist but centralization aims to streamline discovery and rulings.
- Transferee court would manage discovery tracks and motions to dismiss efficiently; panel recognizes potential savings in time and resources.
- Opposition cites unique facts and travel burdens; Panel finds these are outweighed by benefits of centralized proceedings and uniform case management.
- Schedule A lists numerous districts; Panel designates Judge Richard A. Holwell in SDNY as transferee judge, with coordination to proceed there.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether centralization under §1407 is proper for these actions | Plaintiffs support centralization. | Defendants argue centralization may be inappropriate due to individual issues. | Centralization granted; common questions predominate enough to justify transfer. |
| Whether SDNY is an appropriate transferee district | SDNY is convenient for documents and witnesses. | Any forum could be appropriate; concerns about travel and costs. | SDNY deemed appropriate transferee district. |
| Whether premature to centralize before service and motions rulings | Early centralization streamlines coordination with bankruptcy proceedings. | Premature until service and motions are resolved. | Premature concerns rejected; centralization approved to streamline resolution. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Denture Cream Prods. Liab. Litig., 624 F.Supp.2d 1379 (J.P.M.L. 2009) (centralization decisions tolerate common and individual issues)
- In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 173 F.Supp.2d 1377 (J.P.M.L. 2001) (no need for complete identity of issues for centralization)
- In re Yamaha Motor Corp. Rhino ATV Prods. Liab. Litig., 597 F.Supp.2d 1377 (J.P.M.L. 2009) (allowes multiple discovery tracks under centralized format)
- In re Darvocet, Darvon & Propoxyphene Prods. Liab. Litig., 780 F.Supp.2d 1379 (J.P.M.L. 2011) (efficiency gains from centralized handling)
- In re Refco Sec. Litig., 530 F.Supp.2d 1350 (J.P.M.L. 2007) (coordinate or consolidated pretrial proceedings favored)
- In re Lawnmower Engine Horsepower Mktg. and Sales Practices Litig., 588 F.Supp.2d 1379 (J.P.M.L. 2008) (centralization yields time and cost savings)