Case Name: In re XEROX CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION
Court: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-06-19
Citations: 211 F. Supp. 2d 1382
Docket Number: No. MDL-1463
Parties: In re XEROX CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION
Judges: Before WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman, JOHN F. KEENAN, MOREY L. SEAR, BRUCE M. SELYA, JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, D. LOWELL JENSEN and J. FREDERICK MOTZ, Judges of the Panel.
Reporter: Federal Supplement 2d
Volume: 211
Pages: 1382–1384

Head Matter:
In re XEROX CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION
No. MDL-1463.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
June 19, 2002.
Before WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman, JOHN F. KEENAN, MOREY L. SEAR, BRUCE M. SELYA, JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, D. LOWELL JENSEN and J. FREDERICK MOTZ, Judges of the Panel.

Opinion:
TRANSFER ORDER
WILLIAM TERRELL HODGES, Chairman.
This litigation presently consists of 22 actions: 21 actions in the District of Connecticut and one action in the Northern District of Florida. Before the Panel is a motion by the Xerox Corporation (Xerox) and affiliated defendants, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, to centralize these actions in the District of Connecticut for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The Florida plaintiffs and defendant KPMG LLP agree that centralization in the Connecticut court is appropriate.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that these actions involve common questions of fact arising out of allegations that Xerox, individual Xerox defendants, and Xerox's outside auditor, KPMG LLP, violated the federal securities laws by engaging in various improper accounting practices which resulted in certain materially false and misleading public statements that artificially inflated the price of Xerox's common stock and/or bonds. The Panel also finds that centralization in the District of Connecticut will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation, while accordingly being necessary in order to avoid duplication of discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.
The District of Connecticut stands out as the appropriate transferee forum for this litigation. We note that i) 21 actions now before the Panel are pending there before Judge Alvin W. Thompson, and ii) all parties agree upon Section 1407 centralization in the Connecticut court.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the action on the attached Schedule A pending in the Northern District of Florida is transferred to the District of Connecticut and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Alvin W. Thompson for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions pending there.
SCHEDULE A
MDL-1463 — In re Xerox Corp. Securities Litigation
District of Connecticut
Russell Carlson, et al. v. Xerox Corp., et al., C.A. No. 3:00-1621
Roslyn Feder v. Xerox Corp., et al., C.A. No. 3:00-1758
Joseph Gladke v. Xerox Corp., et al., C.A. No. 3:00-1779
Sylvia Cohen v. Xerox Corp., et al., C.A. No. 3:00-1792
Paul Dantzig v. Xerox Corp., et al., C.A. No. 3:00-1795
Susan Fleischman v. Xerox Corp., et al., C.A. No. 3:00-1824
Herman Krangel, et al. v. Xerox Corp., et al., C.A. No. 3:00-1846
Noah Minkin v. Xerox Corp., et al., C.A. No. 3:00-1883
Dr. Robert Corwin v. Xerox Corp., et al., C.A. No. 3:00-1908
James A. Francis v. Xerox Corp., et al., C.A. No. 3:00-1916
David Scott Snyder v. Xerox Corp., et al., C.A. No. 3:00-1967
Kenneth Mady v. Xerox Corp., et al., C.A. No. 3:00-2029
Margolis Partnership v. Xerox Corp., et al., C.A. No. 3:01-244
Roelf Iest v. Xerox Corp., et al., C.A. No. 3:01-285
Debbie Anderson v. Xerox Corp., et al., C.A. No. 3:01-341
Garth Nicholls v. Xerox Corp., et al., C.A. No. 3:01-449
George T. Demarest v. Xerox Corp., et al., C.A. No. 3:01-497
Wazir Sajan v. Xerox Corp., et al., C.A. No. 3:01-583
Michael Eannazzo v. Xerox Corp., et al., C.A. No. 3:01-584
1993 GF PaHnership # 3, et al. v. Xerox Corp., et al., C.A. No. 3:01-591
David A. Del Corso v. Xerox Corp., et al., C.A. No. 3:01-614
NoHhem District of Florida
Florida State Board of Administration, et al., v. Xerox Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:02-8