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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

179. Lead Plaintiff’s and Lead Counsel’s efforts to meet and confer with defendants were not always successful. On May 24, 2004, officer defendants Pai, Frevert, Kean and Mark-Jusbasche moved for an order compelling Lead Plaintiff to answer interrogatories concerning the identities of alleged speakers and statements contained in the complaint. A similar motion to compel was filed by CSFB shortly thereafter. 180. Lead Plaintiff opposed defendants’ motion, primarily because defendants had been provided a list of witnesses from whom the allegations were generated. Lead Plaintiff further argued several sources were confidential whistleblowers protected from disclosure due to privilege. On September 30, 2005, the Court granted defendants’ motion to compel, ruling the identity of witnesses was not protected work product. The Court further held defendants were entitled to the identity of the alleged speakers. Lead Plaintiff was ordered to supplement its interrogatory responses within 20 days. Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel promptly complied with the Court’s order. e. Lead Counsel Defends Numerous Class Certification Depositions 181. As previously discussed, on August 13, 2002 Lead Counsel successfully moved for a protective order curtailing an excessive number of plaintiff depositions. At the same time Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel moved for a protective order, Lead Plaintiff also committed to providing defendants with a large number of deponents, including a person most knowledgeable on behalf of each institutional plaintiff, and depositions from individual named plaintiffs and class representatives, thereby agreeing to scores of plaintiff depositions. 182. Lead Counsel assisted witnesses in preparing for their depositions and defended the depositions. Starting in August 2003 and continuing through September 2003, 23 institutional and class representative depositions were taken by defendants. Twenty-one of the depositions were defended by Lead Counsel in states across the country. The plaintiff deponents responded to detailed questions concerning the Enron fraud, Enron’s complex facts, investment in Enron - 104 -
securities, understanding of a representatives’ responsibilities, monitoring of the litigation, and similar topics. 183. Defendants deposed all of the proposed class representatives and propounded interrogatories and RFAs. The following is a list of all proposed class representatives who were deposed: Deponent Depo Date Location of Depo Entity Defending Attorney Louis Sarno 9/5/03 NYC Amalgamated Bank Paul Howes Paula N. John 9/11/03 Milwaukee, WI Archdiocese of Milwaukee Paul Howes VP/GC of Fund Supporting Fund, Inc. Randall Atkins 9/9/03 Charleston, WV Employer-Teamsters Local Paul Howes Business Agent/ Board of Trustees Nos. 175 & 505 Pension Trust Funds Teresa Warren Administrative Services 9/3/03 Atlanta, GA Greenville Plumbers Paul Howes Inc. Wayne Chun CEO/3rd party administrator 9/22/03 San Diego, CA Hawaii Laborers Pension Plan Barbara McFetridge 9/24/03 San Diego, CA Imperial County Board of Retirement Jacque Millard 9/15/03 Salt Lake City, IHC Health Plan UT Nathaniel Pulsifer 9/5/03 Boston, MA Nathaniel Pulsifer Trustee of the Shooters Hill Revocable Trust Carl Wilberg 8/29/03 San Francisco, CA - 105 - San Francisco City & County Employee’s Retirement System Helen Hodges James Jaconette Paul Howes Thomas Shapiro Paul Howes Don Bobbs, Director 9/10/03 Milwaukee, WI Staro Asset Management, Paul Howes Credit Arbitrage LLP Jeff Heil 8/25/03 San Francisco, The Regents of the University Paul Howes Head of Equity Investments CA of California William P. Kennett 9/23/03 Seattle, WA Washington State Investment Paul Howes Sr. Investment Officer Board Michael Bessire 8/22/03 Dallas, TX Individual Paul Howes John Cassidy 9/4/03 San Diego Individual Jim Hail/John Lowther Michael B. Henning 8/20/03 Ft. Myers, FL Individual Paul Howes Dr. Richard Kimmerling 8/21/03 Atlanta, GA Individual Paul Howes Dr. Fitzhugh Mayo 9/17/03 Virginia Beach, VA George M. Placke 8/14/03 Corpus Christi, TX Individual Individual Paul Howes Paul Howes
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 and 106: promptly responded to all discovery
Page 107: Enron securities, and questions con
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?