Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02264/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02264-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:77 Securities Fraud

---

Case MDL No. 2742 Document 98 Filed 10/04/16 Page 1 of 5 

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL 

on 

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION 

IN RE: SUNEDISON, INC., SECURITIES LITIGATION 

TRANSFER ORDER 

MDL No. 2742 

Before the Panel:* Plaintiff the Municipal Employees' Retirement System of Michigan, 

which is the court-appointed lead plaintiff in the Eastern District ofMissouri Horowitz action, moves 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize fifteen actions in the Southern District of New York. This 

litigation arises out of the operation and demise ofSunEdison, Inc., a company engaged in renewable 

energy development - the financing, construction and operation of solar, wind and hydroelectric 

power plants- throughout the world. The actions, which are listed on the attached Schedules A and 

B, are pending in the Northern District of California (ten actions), the Eastern District of Missouri 

(three actions), the District of Maryland (one action) and the Southern District of New York (one 

action). The Panel has been informed of nine additional related federal actions. 1 

Consolidated ERISA plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Missouri (plaintiffs in the Usenko 

lead action and the Dull and Linton potential tag-along actions) and plaintiff in the Southern District 

of New York Bloom action and potential tag-along action support plaintiffs motion. Defendants2 

support centralization in the Southern District ofNew York but do not object to transfer to any of 

the districts in which the actions are pending. 

The remaining responding plaintiffs oppose centralization. Consolidated ERISA plaintiff 

in the Eastern District ofMissouri Wheeler potential tag-along action opposes centralization, as does 

Judge Marjorie 0. Rendell did not participate in the decision of this matter. 

1 Those actions and any other related federal actions are potential tag-along actions. See 

Panel Rules 1.1(h), 7.1, and 7.2. 

2 Ahmad Chatila, Brian Wuebbels, Emmanuel Hernandez, Antonio R. Alvarez, Peter 

Blackmore, Clayton C. Daley, Jr., Georganne C. Proctor, Steven Tesoriere, James B. Williams, 

Randy H. Zwirn, Matthew Herzberg, Martin Truong, Jeremy Avenier, Alejandro Hernandez, and 

Carlos Domenech Zornoza (collectively, the individual defendants); SunEdison, Inc. Investment 

Committee, TerraForm Global, Inc., TerraForm Power, Inc.; and Barclays Capital Inc., BTG Pactual 

US Capital LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Agricole CIB, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank 

Securities Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., Itau BBA USA Securities, Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, 

Kotak Mahindra, Inc., Macquarie Capital (USA), Inc., MCS Capital Markets LLC, Merrill Lynch, 

Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Santander, SG Americas 

Securities, LLC, and SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc. (collectively underwriter defendants). 

A CERTIFIED COPY 

:RUB"\\ J. KRA11CK, CLERK 

BY !lw-11:!2~ Depu. Clerk 

Case 3:16-cv-02264-WHA Document 155 Filed 10/06/16 Page 1 of 5
Case MDL No. 2742 Document 98 Filed 10/04/16 Page 2 of 5 

-2-

plaintiff in the District of Maryland Chamblee action and the unopposed lead plaintiff movant in the 

Eastern District of Missouri Church action. Plaintiffs in the Northern District of California Pyramid 

Holdings action (the court-appointed lead plaintiff in the Terraform Global initial public offering 

class cases) and in the Beltran action oppose centralization of the Terraform Global IPO cases and, 

alternatively, suggest transfer to the Northern District of California. Terraform Global IPO plaintiffs 

in the Northern District of California Iron Workers, Patel and Fraser actions also oppose 

centralization and, alternatively, suggest transfer to the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs 

in four non-class Northern District of California actions (Omega, Glenview, Cobalt and Oklahoma 

Firefighters) oppose centralization of their actions and, alternatively, suggest transfer to the Northern 

District of California. 

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that these actions 

involve common questions of fact, and that centralization will serve the convenience of the parties 

and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. The actions share factual 

issues arising from allegedly inaccurate statements concerning SunEdison' s operational and financial 

condition- e.g., its liquidity, classification of debt (roughly $750 million in debt was reclassified 

from non-recourse to recourse debt in November 2015), and internal financial controls- and the 

alleged impropriety of its public filings. The actions before us involve various transactions, offerings 

and statements made in the roughly ten-month period before SunEdison filed for bankruptcy relief. 

All actions- whether focused on statements made in the promotion of SunEdison' s or its affiliates '

3 

securities, important acquisitions such as SunEdison's failed purchase ofVivint or decisions made 

regarding the SunEdison retirement plan- can be expected to tum on SunEdison's actual financial 

condition during the relevant time period and what information regarding the company's financial 

condition was disclosed to investors. Further, centralization will prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings 

on class certification and other pretrial matters, and conserve the resources of the parties, their 

counsel, and the judiciary. 

Plaintiffs in most actions oppose centralization, largely focusing on the unique aspects of the 

various types of actions, and the different securities, claims or defendants involved. While there are 

differences in the focus of each group of actions, all actions contain similar allegations regarding the 

financial condition of SunEdison in the months leading up to its bankruptcy. The internal financial 

controls and financial reporting processes of the affiliates TERP and Terraform Global are alleged 

to have been closely tied, via Management Services Agreements, to those of SunEdison. According 

to plaintiffs, SunEdison provided them with most of their personnel, management, and operations. 

3 SunEdison had two partially-owned affiliates known as "yieldcos"- Terraform Power 

(TERP, which became publicly traded in July 2014), and Terraform Global (which held its initial 

public offering in late-July 2015). Plaintiffs explain that yieldcos are public companies created to 

purchase and own renewable energy projects developed by the sponsoring company, SunEdison. 

The projects purchased by a yieldco generate revenue as power is sold to customers, and the yieldco 

returns a portion of that revenue to its investors as dividends. TERP operates renewable energy 

projects in the developed world, and Terraform Global was reportedly intended to serve as a 

companion to TERPin emerging markets. 

Case 3:16-cv-02264-WHA Document 155 Filed 10/06/16 Page 2 of 5
Case MDL No. 2742 Document 98 Filed 10/04/16 Page 3 of 5 

-3-

In particular, the affiliates' executives- including the individual defendants in most actions- often 

were or are SunEdison officers or directors. In light of this common factual backdrop and 

overlapping defendants among the actions, we are persuaded that this litigation will benefit from the 

framework provided by centralized proceedings for discovery and motion practice. The transferee 

court can, of course, structure the pretrial proceedings so as to allow discovery with respect to 

individual issues to proceed concurrently with pretrial proceedings on common issues, In re: 

Ephedra Products Liability Litigation, 314 F. Supp.2d 1373, 1375 (J.P.M.L. 2004), and otherwise 

ensure that pretrial proceedings are conducted in a streamlined manner leading to the just and 

expeditious resolution of all actions to the overall benefit of the parties. 

We often have centralized diverse litigation stemming from the conduct of large companies 

that have entered bankruptcy.4 For instance, in MDL No. 2338- In re: MF Global Holdings Ltd. 

Investment Litigation, 857 F.Supp.2d 1378 (J.P.M.L. 2012), we centralized investor actions 

alongside those brought by commodities futures customers in the district where defendants' 

bankruptcy was pending. While some parties suggest that coordination among counsel may be 

preferable to formal centralization, the sheer number of counsel involved in these cases make this 

option challenging, if not unworkable. Moreover, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the 

Department of Justice reportedly are investigating SunEdison's conduct, and centralization before 

a single judge will facilitate coordination with any actions that may result. 

Plaintiffs in the Northern District of California Cobalt, Glenview and Omega actions request 

that we exclude their actions in light of their pending petitions for permission to appeal under 

Section 1292(b) before the Ninth Circuit. See Cobalt Partners, LP, et al. v. SunEdison, Inc., et al., 

Appeal No. 16-80118 (91

h Cir.). We deny that request. Given the overwhelming factual overlap of 

these three actions with the other actions, we think it best that all actions be transferred immediately 

so they can proceed in a coordinated fashion before a single judge. 

We select the Southern District of New York as transferee district for this litigation. The 

Southern District of New York is where SunEdison's Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding is 

underway. We often have centralized litigation in the district in which a principal defendant's 

4 See, e.g., In re: Enron Corp. Sec., Derivative & "ERISA" Litig., 196 F. Supp. 2d 1375, 

13 7 6 (J .P .M.L. 2002) ("Whether the actions be brought by securities holders seeking relief under the 

federal securities laws, shareholders suing derivatively on behalf ofEnron, 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."); In re: WorldCom, Inc., Sec. & "ERISA" Litig., 226 F. Supp. 2d 1352, 1354 

(J.P.M.L. 2002) (centralizing securities, ERISA and shareholder derivative actions because they 

involved common "factual questions arising out of alleged misrepresentations or om1sswns 

concerning WorldCom's financial condition and accounting practices"). 

Case 3:16-cv-02264-WHA Document 155 Filed 10/06/16 Page 3 of 5
Case MDL No. 2742 Document 98 Filed 10/04116 Page 4 of 5 

-4-

bankruptcy is pending. 5 Moreover, this district has the support of defendants and several plaintiffs. 

Centralization in this district will facilitate coordination with the bankruptcy court on, inter alia, 

discovery, indemnification and settlement issues. Further, given that many of the underwriter 

defendants are based in this district, many potentially relevant documents and witnesses may be 

found there. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside 

the Southern District ofNew York are transferred to the Southern District of New York, and, with 

the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable P. Kevin Castel for coordinated or consolidated 

pretrial proceedings. 

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION 

Sarah S. Vance 

Chair 

Charles R. Breyer 

Ellen Segal Huvelle 

Catherine D. Perry 

Lewis A. Kaplan 

R. David Proctor 

5 See, e.g., In re: Gen. Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litig., 26 F. Supp. 3d 1390, 1391 

(J.P.M.L. 2014) (transferring actions to the Southern District of New York, where both General 

Motors and Delphi bankruptcies were filed); In re: TelexFree Sec. Litig., 54 F. Supp. 3d 1353, 1354 

(J.P.M.L. 2014) (transferring actions to district where TelexFree bankruptcy cases were filed). 

Case 3:16-cv-02264-WHA Document 155 Filed 10/06/16 Page 4 of 5
Case MDL No. 2742 Document 98 Filed 10/04/16 Page 5 of 5 

IN RE: SUNEDISON, INC., SECURITIES LITIGATION MDL No. 2742 

SCHEDULE A 

Northern District of California 

BELTRAN v. TERRAFORM GLOBAL, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:15-04981 

PYRAMID HOLDINGS, INC. v. TERRAFORM GLOBAL, INC., ET AL., 

C.A. No. 5:15-05068 

COBALT PARTNERS, LP, ET AL. v. SUNEDISON, INC., ET AL., 

C.A. No. 3:16-02263 

GLENVIEW CAPITAL PARTNERS, L.P., ET AL. v. SUNEDISON, INC., ET AL., 

C.A. No. 3:16-02264 

OMEGA CAPITAL INVESTORS, L.P., ET AL. v. SUNEDISON, INC., ET AL., 

C.A. No. 3:16-02268 

OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM v. 

SUNEDISON, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:16-02267 

BADRI v. TERRAFORM GLOBAL, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:16-02269 

IRON WORKERS MID-SOUTH PENSION FUND v. TERRAFORM 

GLOBAL, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:16-02270 

PATEL v. TERRAFORM GLOBAL, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:16-02272 

FRASER v. TERRAFORM GLOBAL, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:16-02273 

District of Maryland 

CHAMBLEE v. TERRAFORM POWER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 8:16-00981 

Eastern District of Missouri 

HOROWITZ v. SUNEDISON, INC., ET AL., C.A. No.4: 15-01769 

USENKO v. SUNEDISON, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:16-00076 

CHURCH v. CHATILA, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:16-00628 

Southern District ofNew York 

BLOOM, ET AL. v. SUNEDISON, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16-07427 

Case 3:16-cv-02264-WHA Document 155 Filed 10/06/16 Page 5 of 5