Court Opinion

ID: 9654393
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:18:29.151513+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:08.839254
License: Public Domain

EDWARD WEINFELD, Judge of the Panel,
with whom
JOHN MINOR WISDOM, Chairman of the Panel,
joins, concurring.
I concur in the decision of my brethren that the actions before us pending in districts other than the Southern District of New York should, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, be transferred to that district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions pending there. 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.