In re Luca Int'l Grp. Sec. Litig.

Counsel

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we conclude that centralization is not necessary for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. All actions involve questions of fact as to the scheme in which defendants Lei, Yang, and Pollace are alleged to have participated. But we are not convinced that centralization will deliver significant benefits in terms of enhancing the efficient conduct of these actions or the convenience of the parties. There are just two actions pending in two districts, with a limited number of parties and counsel. Informal coordination clearly is practicable. And it seems movant has not explored alternatives to centralization before filing the present motion. See In re: Best Buy Co., Inc., Cal. Song-Beverly Credit Card Act Litig. , 804 F.Supp.2d 1376, 1378 (J.P.M.L. 2011) ("centralization under Section 1407 should be the last solution after considered review of all other options.")., Additionally, the actions are in widely different procedural postures. The SEC action has been pending for three years, discovery is nearly complete, and the court is hearing motions for summary judgment. In contrast, defendants to the adversary proceeding were served four months ago. Centralization, therefore, would have the likely effect of delaying the quite advanced SEC action., The SEC argues that 15 U.S.C. § 78u(g) prohibits its action-an action for equitable relief instituted by the SEC pursuant to the securities laws-from being coordinated or consolidated with other actions not brought by the SEC without the SEC's consent, which it has not granted. We find that the circumstances presented in this motion do not warrant centralization and, therefore, we need not reach this argument., IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for centralization of these actions is denied.