Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

UMBRIAC v. AMERICAN SNACKS

January 27, 1975

ROSEMARY L. UMBRIAC, CATHERINE A. LYMAN, ALICE J. LYMAN and CLETUS P. LYMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v.
AMERICAN SNACKS, INC., TOUCHE ROSS & CO., DAVID CASTY, EDWARD GOLDBERG, MARVIN HOFFMAN, SAMUEL H. JAFFEE, ROBERT L. WOLFSON, EDWARD J. LAMBUR, JR., BEN FANEUIL, STANLEY H. ROSENSWEIG, and SCHERCK, STEIN & FRANC, INC.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: HIGGINBOTHAM

 This is a class action and I must presently decide whether to grant defendants' motion to transfer this case from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the District of Massachusetts under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) after having denied a similar motion to transfer in an individual action involving many of the same parties, the same factual allegations, and the same cause of action. For reasons hereinafter discussed, I am granting defendants' transfer motions in spite of my ruling in the individual action brought by the same named plaintiffs. A brief statement of the procedural history of the two actions will facilitate a clear understanding of the present issue.

 PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 On October 3, 1969, ASI allegedly issued a "News Release," reporting that ASI would "write off" $1,100,000 of corporate assets "net of taxes" which was based upon a re-evaluation of the assets. Consequently, the debentures offered earlier dropped substantially in value. Twenty of plaintiffs' twenty-five debentures were thereafter sold for approximately $500 per debenture, or 50% of their original investment. By that action plaintiffs seek, inter alia, a rescission of the sale of the remaining five debentures which they retain, and compensatory damages for the loss incurred by their past sale of the debentures at a reduced value. ASI and Touche Ross thereafter moved to transfer the action to Massachusetts under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and as to the individual action I denied the motion by Memorandum and Order dated August 15, 1974.

 On March 6, 1974, the same four named plaintiffs filed this class action against ASI and Touche Ross reciting the same allegations in their complaint and requesting the same relief as had been requested in the individual action. Additionally, the complaint impleaded directors of ASI as well as the managing underwriter of the debenture issue in question, the firm of Scherck, Stein & Franc, Inc. (hereinafter "Scherck"), located in St. Louis, Missouri. The class which plaintiffs purport to represent are ". . . the class of persons and entities who purchased 6% convertible subordinated debentures due 1989 issued by Snacks ('the debentures') during the period beginning at the date of original issue (on or about March 15, 1969) and ending October 3, 1969, who either continue to hold the debentures or who have sold the debentures after October 3, 1969, at a loss." *fn2" Again in this action ASI and Touche Ross have moved to transfer the case to Massachusetts under § 1404(a). *fn3" Therefore, I must decide, in essence, whether after denying the motion to transfer in the individual suit, the status of plaintiffs' present case as a class action and the impleading of the additional defendants now tips the balance of convenience and justice away from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania forum and in favor of the District of Massachusetts.

 MOTIONS TO TRANSFER UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

 28 U.S.C. § 1404 provides in relevant part:

 
"(a) For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought."

 From the language of the statute I must make two determinations in considering defendants' transfer motions. I must first determine whether Massachusetts is a district wherein this civil action might have been brought at the time it was commenced in this forum. Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 80 S. Ct. 1084, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1254 (1960); Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp., 431 F.2d 22 (3d Cir. 1970); Goodman v. Fleischmann, 364 F. Supp. 1172 (E.D. Pa. 1973). Next I must determine whether a transfer will be in the interest of justice and for the convenience of parties and witnesses.

 
". . . Any suit or action to enforce any liability or duty created by this chapter or rules and regulations thereunder, or to enjoin any violation of such chapter or rules and regulations, may be brought in any such district or in the district wherein the defendant is found or is an inhabitant or transacts business, and process in such cases may be served in any other district of which the defendant is an inhabitant or wherever the defendant may be found."

 ASI has its principal place of business in Chelsea, Massachusetts; the office of Touche Ross which conducted audits for the offering prospectus is located in Wellesley, Massachusetts; and at least four of the eight named defendants reside in Massachusetts. Clearly, this suit could have been brought in the Massachusetts district under the venue provision of § 78aa.

 Next I must determine whether a § 1404(a) transfer to Massachusetts will be in the interest of justice and for the convenience of parties and witnesses. I find the following factors weighing in favor of the transferee forum.

 1. ASI has its principal place of business located at Chelsea, Massachusetts.

 2. The office of Touche Ross which conducted the audit for the offering prospectus is located at Wellesley, Massachusetts.

 3. Four of the eight individual defendants reside in Massachusetts, two reside in Missouri, and one resides in Florida. *fn4"

 4. The offering prospectus was prepared in part from financial statements audited by an office of K. Lasser & Company located in Boston, Massachusetts.

 5. The offering prospectus was prepared in Boston by ASI's general counsel, the firm of Nathanson & Rudofsky, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.