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

April 16, 2004, Lead Counsel filed Lead Plaintiff’s Opposition to Andrews Kurth LLP’s Motion to
Dismiss (Docket No. 22 in Case No. H-04-0088), which argued that A&K was liable for
participating in a fraudulent scheme and committing deceptive acts, notwithstanding its status as a
law firm; the complaint sufficiently pled reliance and scienter; and Lead Plaintiff’s claims were
consistent with the Court’s previous rulings. The Court granted the motion, because the complaint
alleged A&K to have played only a minor role in the Enron scheme; A&K’s conduct was protected
as legal services; the allegations of fraudulent conduct were too general; and A&K is not alleged to
have made public statements. See 9/12/05 Opinion and Order of Partial Dismissal (Docket No. 43 in
Case No. H-04-0088) at 16-17.
192. On March 15, 2004, defendants Royal Bank of Canada, Royal Bank Holding Inc.,
Royal Bank DS Holding Inc., RBC Dominion Securities Limited, RBC Dominion Securities, Inc.,
RBC Holdings (USA) Inc., and RBC Dominion Securities Corporation (“RBC”) filed a motion to
dismiss (Docket Nos. 16-17 in Case No. H-04-0087), which argued for dismissal because the claims
in the complaint were time-barred; the complaint failed to comply with applicable rules of pleading;
and the complaint failed to plead a primary violation, loss causation or control person liability. On
April 16, 2004, Lead Counsel filed Lead Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Filed by
Defendants Royal Bank of Canada, Royal Bank Holding Inc., Royal Bank DS Holding Inc., RBC
Dominion Securities Limited, RBC Dominion Securities, Inc., RBC Holdings (USA) Inc., and RBC
Dominion Securities Corporation (Docket No. 21 in Case No. H-04-0087), which argued that Lead
Plaintiff’s claims were not time-barred; the complaint stated a claim for primary liability under the
securities laws; Lead Plaintiff’s claims were pled in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and the PSLRA; and the complaint adequately alleged loss causation and stated a claim
for control person liability. The Court denied the motion, finding that the claims were timely filed
and adequately pled, but due to the issuance of Dura Pharms., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336 (2005),
- 109 -