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

No. H-03-5528), which argued for dismissal because Lead Plaintiff’s claims were time-barred and
the complaint failed to allege a primary violation and loss causation. In response, on March 18,
2004 Lead Counsel filed Lead Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Filed by 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.
(Docket No. 2032), which argued that the complaint stated claims for primary liability under the
securities laws; Lead Plaintiff’s claims were timely; and the complaint adequately alleged loss
causation. This Court had not yet ruled on this motion at the time the stay of these proceedings was
entered.
190. On March 15, 2004, defendants Goldman, Sachs & Co. and The Goldman Sachs
Group, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss (Docket Nos. 17-18 in Case No. H-04-0088), which argued for
dismissal because Lead Plaintiff’s allegations against other defendants negated those against
Goldman Sachs, and the complaint failed to adequately plead control person liability, and said claim
was time-barred. On April 16, 2004, Lead Counsel filed Lead Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to
Dismiss filed by Defendants Goldman, Sachs & Co. and The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Docket
No. 23 in Case No. H-04-0088), which argued that Lead Plaintiff had pled a prima facie case for
liability against defendants; its claims were not time-barred; and it had properly pled a claim for
control person liability. The Court denied the motion, finding the §11 claim adequately pled, and
granted Lead Plaintiff leave to replead its control person claim. See 12/5/05 Opinion and Order
(Docket No. 46 in Case No. H-04-0088) at 67-69.
191. On March 15, 2004, defendant Andrews Kurth LLP (“A&K”) filed a motion to
dismiss (Docket No. 19 in Case No. H-04-0088), which argued for dismissal because the complaint
failed to allege that the defendant made a misleading statement or committed a manipulative act;
plaintiffs did not rely on the defendant’s conduct; and the complaint failed to plead scienter. On
- 108 -