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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

were followed by RFAs and interrogatories. Defendants sought detailed information from Lead Plaintiff The Regents, including information about its investment procedures and guidelines, relationship with Enron, Enron-related energy contracts, and similar documents. 174. Lead Counsel responded to all of the discovery propounded by defendants. For example, in July and August 2002 Lead Counsel filed 15 separate document production request responses. Lead Counsel served its document production request responses to the bank defendants on August 2, 2002, and therein agreed to produce a significant amount of information, including Lead Plaintiff’s trades in Enron-related securities, the institution’s tax returns, statements of net worth, assets and liabilities, and similar financial information. Lead Plaintiff further agreed to produce various documents concerning the allegations contained in the complaint, and nearly all nonprivileged Enron-related documents held by Lead Plaintiff. Similarly detailed responses were filed on behalf of the financial institution plaintiffs and individual Class representatives. Every document gathered and produced was reviewed in detail by Lead Counsel to ensure no privileged documents were inadvertently produced. b. Lead Counsel, Lead Plaintiff and Class Representatives Respond to Interrogatories 175. Defendants such as Jeffrey Skilling, Lou Pai, and the financial institutions served voluminous interrogatories on Lead Plaintiff, other institutional plaintiffs and Class representatives. Among the information requested by defendants’ interrogatories was total losses suffered due to Enron’s collapse, the Class each prospective plaintiff sought to represent, detailed insider trading and disgorgement data for alleged violations of §20A of the Exchange Act, material nonpublic information the defendants purportedly failed to disclose to the Class, facts demonstrating the litigation was suitable for Rule 23 class action treatment, legal theories concerning plaintiffs’ causes of action, questions concerning expert witnesses, whether “inducements” resulted in the purchase of - 102 -
Enron securities, and questions concerning brokers, advisers or other financial professionals who may have participated in the decision to acquire Enron’s publicly traded securities. 176. Lead Plaintiff diligently responded to all of the interrogatories. In May 2003 Lead Counsel filed 34 separate, certified responses on behalf of institutional and individual plaintiffs. Each of the certified responses answered or objected to the hundreds of collective interrogatories propounded by defendants, a significant undertaking. c. Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel Answer Class Certification Requests for Admission 177. In August 2003, Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel responded to several defendants’ RFAs concerning class certification issues. The majority of the RFAs required Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel to confirm, and admit the authenticity of, thousands of pages of documents, court filings, press releases, and similar written and recorded statements by The Regents, institutions and individuals concerning Enron-related matters. Additionally Lead Plaintiff answered questions concerning Enron’s provision of electricity services to The Regents. Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel promptly responded to all of the RFAs. d. Lead Plaintiff Responds to Additional Discovery and Supplements Its Responses 178. After initial discovery was propounded and answered by Lead Counsel, Lead Plaintiff and other plaintiffs, additional discovery was pursued by defendants during the litigation. For example, in the first quarter of 2004 Lead Counsel produced additional documents and answered questions by defendants such as Lehman Brothers, CSFB and others. On May 14, 2004, Lead Counsel served verified interrogatory responses to five separate requests by Enron’s former officers. These responses were supplemented in October and November of 2005 concerning the complaint’s allegations. And additional supplementation was provided to defendants during expert discovery. - 103 -
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 and 10:
6. The above recoveries were based
Page 11 and 12:
gathered and which the banks and En
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 105: promptly responded to all discovery
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?