Declaration Of Helen J. Hodges In Support Of Lead Counsel's ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

full-time support to discovery and countless briefs. At every stage, this case consumed the full-time attention of at least a dozen of our lawyers. During the fact and expert discovery phases, there were over two dozen lawyers who devoted themselves to the effort. During these years of pretrial preparation, hundreds of witnesses were interviewed, over 370 depositions were taken and/or defended and over 70 million pages of documents were obtained and reviewed. Experts in matters financial and economic, as well as loss causation and damage, were retained and prepared to create detailed, persuasive reports in connection with class certification and summary judgment. 5 These experts also were prepared for and represented at lengthy depositions. Defendants fielded 40 experts taking aim at ours. Attorneys for Coughlin Stoia reviewed their reports, researched their prior testimony and writings, and deposed them in a short time period. 8. Some critics might claim that significant evidence was gathered for us by Bankruptcy Examiner Neal Batson (“Batson”) and others who investigated Enron’s meltdown. Not so. 6 First, it was our motion for appointment of a trustee in bankruptcy and our negotiation for an order that resulted in the appointment of a bankruptcy examiner. Second, Batson used our Consolidated Complaint as a “roadmap” for his investigation. After Batson gathered evidence, the banks asked Judge Gonzalez to deny us access to the evidence and Judge Gonzalez granted that motion. In the meantime, we moved Judge Harmon for and were granted access to the evidence which Batson 5 Blaine Nye, Ph.D. (damages and market efficiency), Scott D. Hakala, Ph.D., CFA (damages), Israel Shaked (insolvency), Bernard Black (disclosure), Claire Hill (rating agencies), Craig Shenkman (tax transactions), Charles Drott (auditing), Joel Finard (investment banking), Saul Solomon (accounting), George Cohen (lawyer ethics and conduct), Susan Koniak (lawyer ethics and conduct) and Mark Sargent (lawyer ethics and conduct). 6 Notably, the criminal cases tried by the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) did not, with the exception of the case against some former Merrill Lynch executives, reveal any evidence against the banks. And, the case against the Merrill Lynch individuals addressed only one transaction, the Nigerian Barge deal. - 6 -
gathered and which the banks and Enron had. While we used Batson’s evidence to streamline our depositions, we didn’t stop there. We gathered evidence far beyond what Batson had from the banks, from third parties such as the rating agencies and stock analysts, and most notably, from Andrew Fastow (“Fastow”). Finally, it should be noted that the non-settling banks moved to exclude Batson’s reports from our trial. Thus, while we reviewed Batson’s evidence, we went far beyond it and were ready to prove our case. 9. As the case neared trial, the non-settling bank defendants, including Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse First Boston (“CSFB”), Barclays Bank (“Barclays”), Royal Bank of Scotland (“RBS”), Toronto Dominion Bank (“TD”) and Royal Bank of Canada (“RBC”), continued to vigorously defend the case. In the face of expanding adverse Fifth Circuit class certification precedents, Coughlin Stoia assembled an overwhelming showing in favor of certification of the large multi-year fraud class. The showing included expert testimony, a multi-day evidentiary hearing and a detailed trial plan. The Court found the trial plan “presents an orderly and methodical approach for trying the alleged overarching scheme, arising from a common nucleus of fact and common course of conduct, to misrepresent Enron’s financial status, fool credit rating agencies, and deceive investors.” In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig., 236 F.R.D. 313, 316 (S.D. Tex. 2006). After the Court considered this voluminous information, it ruled in favor of class certification. In preparing the case for trial, Coughlin Stoia also fully briefed several large and complex summary judgment motions from the non-settling bank defendants, while defeating the motions to dismiss pursued by RBC. 10. After securing class certification and filing hundreds of pages of briefs in opposition to the non-settling banks’ summary judgment motions, the case was virtually trial ready as to Merrill Lynch, CSFB and Barclays. In the early months of 2007, the Coughlin Stoia litigation team was just weeks away from trial. We filed the joint pretrial order, including witness and exhibits lists and motions in limine. Then, however, a two-member majority of a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals panel - 7 -
Page 1 and 2: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHE
Page 3 and 4: 2. The Parties Establish a Document
Page 5 and 6: I, HELEN J. HODGES, declare as foll
Page 7 and 8: • Reviewed over 70 million pages
Page 9: 6. The above recoveries were based
Page 13 and 14: 14. In this endeavor, Coughlin Stoi
Page 15 and 16: 17. Lead Counsel prosecuted the lit
Page 17 and 18: [T]his representation has been unde
Page 19 and 20: and the necessary involvement with
Page 21 and 22: case. The Court hereby awards attor
Page 23 and 24: published an article, “Enron Jolt
Page 25 and 26: statements. We compiled profiles on
Page 27 and 28: 34. We had no way of knowing whethe
Page 29 and 30: which witnesses to pursue, but cont
Page 31 and 32: the market in October 2001. The ana
Page 33 and 34: said it was unable to determine whe
Page 35 and 36: depositions because discovery was p
Page 37 and 38: 65. After the motion was filed, The
Page 39 and 40: institutional plaintiffs, their rep
Page 41 and 42: drawing on the expertise of our in-
Page 43 and 44: 83. On May 3, 2002, the Preferred P
Page 45 and 46: finance certain of the partnerships
Page 47 and 48: and participated in a scheme to def
Page 49 and 50: (j) Arthur Andersen LLP (Docket No.
Page 51 and 52: Lead Plaintiff had adequately alleg
Page 53 and 54: (a) The Court ruled that Lead Plain
Page 55 and 56: director of New Power, and issuance
Page 57 and 58: 94. On September 26, 2002, Lead Pla
Page 59 and 60: mandamus review, and that the Court
Page 61 and 62:
106. On May 6, 2003, defendant Citi
Page 63 and 64:
scheme, and certain specific allega
Page 65 and 66:
pled with the requisite particulari
Page 67 and 68:
Merrill Lynch and Deutsche Bank Ent
Page 69 and 70:
4. Motions to Intervene Additional
Page 71 and 72:
Gramm, Jaedicke, LeMaistre, Meyer,
Page 73 and 74:
professionals and experts, and atte
Page 75 and 76:
121. On May 7, 2003, the Outside Di
Page 77 and 78:
of Enron’s prominence and magnitu
Page 79 and 80:
131. As part of discovery, Lead Cou
Page 81 and 82:
Third Parties and Defendants Date S
Page 83 and 84:
Third Parties and Defendants Date S
Page 85 and 86:
133. Document requests and subpoena
Page 87 and 88:
139. In responding to the document
Page 89 and 90:
146. In addition to JPMorgan’s in
Page 91 and 92:
10. Requests for Admission 152. In
Page 93 and 94:
Protocol Order provided for the ord
Page 95 and 96:
privilege. And the defendants agree
Page 97 and 98:
Deponent Entity Date[s] Location No
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
promptly responded to all discovery
Page 107 and 108:
Enron securities, and questions con
Page 109 and 110:
securities, understanding of a repr
Page 111 and 112:
187. Lead Counsel made further supp
Page 113 and 114:
April 16, 2004, Lead Counsel filed
Page 115 and 116:
195. On April 13, 2004, defendants
Page 117 and 118:
Plaintiffs’ Investors Partner Lif
Page 119 and 120:
• Outside Directors’ Memorandum
Page 121 and 122:
208. A two-day hearing was held reg
Page 123 and 124:
Expert Entity Area of Opinion Dorri
Page 125 and 126:
and is the basis for a presumption
Page 127 and 128:
nature of Enron’s financial condi
Page 129 and 130:
economically valid method and frame
Page 131 and 132:
primarily involving Deutsche Bank,
Page 133 and 134:
We filed a notice of request for se
Page 135 and 136:
236. Bankruptcy Examiner Batson him
Page 137 and 138:
egarding the §11 claims, which wer
Page 139 and 140:
proceeds for our settlement. Thus,
Page 141 and 142:
egarding the policies and he moved
Page 143 and 144:
team; for example, we reviewed info
Page 145 and 146:
Court ruled that Lead Plaintiff fai
Page 147 and 148:
Opposition to Deutsche Bank’s Mot
Page 149 and 150:
Sec. Litig., 443 F.3d 987 (8th Cir.
Page 151 and 152:
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion
Page 153 and 154:
dated June 5, 2006 as It Pertains t
Page 155 and 156:
the Pleadings (Docket No. 5019). On
Page 157 and 158:
joint-and-several liability for kno
Page 159 and 160:
pricing or trade volume data, estim
Page 161 and 162:
y the court and cited in In re Cend
Page 163:
296. Attached hereto as Ex. 2 is a
Page 166 and 167:
ADDITIONAL SERVICE LIST Stuart Yoes
Page 168 and 169:
ENRON COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN
Page 170 and 171:
Name Title Hours Rate Lodestar Meye
Page 172 and 173:
ENRON - SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFFS' FIRM
Page 178:
EXHIBIT 4
Page 182 and 183:
TOP SECURITIES SETTLEMENTS Case Nam
Page 184 and 185:
Exhibit Listings and Notes regardin
show all

Declaration Of Helen J. Hodges In Support Of Lead Counsel's ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?