See In re Westinghouse Electric Corporation Uranium Contracts Litigation, 405 F.Supp. 316, 318 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. 1975); In re Midwest Milk Monopolization Litigation, 386 F.Supp. 1401, 1403 (Jud.Pan. Mult.Lit. 1975); In re Four Seasons Securities Laws Litigation, 361 F.Supp. 636, 638 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. 1973); In re IBM, 314 F.Supp. 1253, 1254 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. 1970). See also nn. 64-67 and accompanying text, infra, concerning remand by the Panel of an action or claim at the suggestion of a transferee judge.

And we are informed that Judge Neville is considering the transfer of the Greyhound action at the conclusion of pretrial proceedings, which are near completion, to the District of Arizona for trial in May of this year. See, In re IBM Antitrust Litigation, 302 F. Supp. 796 (J.P.M.L. 1969); 314 F. Supp. 1253 (J.P.M.L. 1970); 319 F. Supp. 926 (J.P.M.L. 1970). In its complaint against IBM, Telex alleges violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 1 and 2) and Section 3 of the Clayton Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 14). Telex is engaged in manufacturing and selling or leasing peripheral devices to be attached to an IBM central processing unit.

Since it appeared to the Clerk of the Panel that each of the above actions shared common questions of fact with the actions previously transferred to the District of Minnesota and assigned to Judge Phillip Neville for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1407, a "Conditional Transfer Order" was entered transferring both actions to the District of Minnesota on the basis of the prior hearings and for the reasons expressed in previous opinions and orders of the Panel. In re IBM Antitrust Litigation, 319 F. Supp. 926 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. 1970), 314 F. Supp. 1253 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. 1970), 302 F. Supp. 796 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. 1969). Control Data Corporation, the plaintiff in the only originally transferred action still pending in Minnesota, filed a timely notice of opposition to the transfers and a motion to vacate both transfer orders.

In re IBM Antitrust Litigation, 302 F. Supp. 796 (JPML 1969). A later tag-along case was also transferred to Minnesota in July, 1970, In re IBM Antitrust Litigation, 314 F. Supp. 1253 (JPML 1970). After slightly more than a year of pretrial discovery in that district before the Honorable Philip Neville, settlements were reached in all of the actions except the one originally filed there by Control Data Corporation (CDC).

PER CURIAM. On June 19, 1970, a conditional transfer order was entered directing the transfer of this action to the District of Minnesota for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with apparently related actions filed in or transferred to that Court. See, In re IBM Litigation, 302 F. Supp. 796 (JPML 1969) and In re IBM Litigation, 314 F. Supp. 1253 (JP ML, July 10, 1970). Data Processing Financial and Control Data, plaintiffs in two of the actions involved in this multidistrict litigation, oppose transfer and move to vacate the conditional order.