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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Deponent Depo Date Location of Depo Entity Defending Attorney Ben Schuette 8/13/03 Corpus Christi, Individual Paul Howes TX Mervin H. Schwartz, Jr. 9/19/03 Hershey, PA Individual Paul Howes Stephen M. Smith 8/11/03 Houston, TX Individual Paul Howes Joseph C. Speck 8/19/03 Sarasota, FL Individual Paul Howes John Zegarski 8/29/03 San Diego, CA Individual James Jaconette/ John Lowther f. Lead Plaintiff, Institutional Plaintiffs and Class Representatives Produce Tens of Thousands of Pages of Documents to Defendants 184. Beginning on May 9, 2003 Lead Plaintiff, institutional plaintiffs and individual Class representatives began to produce responsive documents to the Enron document depository. A team of experienced lawyers and staff was tasked with reviewing all of the gathered documents. Tens of thousands of pages of documents were gathered, reviewed and produced in response to defendants’ discovery. 185. Production began on July 9, 2003, when thousands of pages of documents were produced by The Regents, Amalgamated Bank, Staro Asset Management, Hawaii Laborers Pension Plan, San Francisco City and County Employee’s Retirement System, and individual plaintiffs. Lead Plaintiff and others produced Enron security trading confirmations, market reports, SEC filings in their possession, news articles, emails, correspondence, notes and asset allocations, all of which were responsive to defendants’ lengthy document production requests. 186. More documents were produced in September 2003. The original document productions were supplemented with additional trading confirms, investment guideline documents, meeting minutes, analyst reports and similar documents. And additional productions occurred in March and November 2004, at which time Washington State Investment Board produced responsive documents, and correspondence and transactional data from plaintiffs was produced. Each of these document productions was in addition to the interrogatory and RFA answers Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel provided during the discovery phase. - 106 -
187. Lead Counsel made further supplemental productions in March, July and November 2006. As Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel prepared for trial, a final January 2007 production of documents was made to the Enron document depository, which consisted primarily of financial and analyst reports prepared by third parties. Lead Plaintiff, institutional plaintiffs and individuals made 13 separate document productions to the Enron document depository in response to defendants’ discovery. VIII. ADDITIONAL MOTION PRACTICE: ADDED DEFENDANTS AND RENEWED MOTIONS TO DISMISS 188. During the course of discovery we filed complaints against new defendants. Each of them moved to dismiss. In addition, Newby defendants filed motions for reconsideration. On February 3, 2004, defendants Toronto-Dominion Bank, Toronto Dominion Holdings (U.S.A.), Inc., TD Securities Inc., TD Securities (USA) Inc., and Toronto Dominion (Texas), Inc. (“TD”), filed a motion to dismiss (Docket No. 17 in Case No. H-03-5528), which argued for dismissal because the complaint failed to allege specific acts of fraud, a primary violation of the securities laws, scienter or control person liability; and the claims alleged were time-barred. In response, on March 18, 2004 Lead Counsel filed Lead Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Filed by Defendants Toronto- Dominion Bank, Toronto Dominion Holdings (U.S.A.), Inc., TD Securities Inc., TD Securities (USA) Inc., and Toronto Dominion (Texas), Inc. (Docket No. 20 in Case No. H-03-5528), which argued that the complaint stated claims for primary liability under the securities laws; the complaint was pled in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the PSLRA; Lead Plaintiffs’ claims were timely; and the complaint stated a claim for control person liability. This Court has not yet ruled on this motion. 189. On February 3, 2004, defendants The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC, National Westminster Bank PLC, Greenwich Natwest Structured Finance, Inc., Greenwich Natwest Ltd. and Campsie, Ltd., filed a motion to dismiss (Docket No. 42 in Case - 107 -
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 and 108: Enron securities, and questions con
Page 109: securities, understanding of a repr
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?