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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

the Court ordered that Lead Plaintiff file a supplemental statement pleading the basis for its allegations of loss causation. See 12/22/05 Opinion and Order (Docket No. 43 in Case No. H-04- 0087) at 31-54. In response, on January 11, 2006, Lead Counsel filed a Supplemental Statement Concerning Loss Causation Pursuant to Court’s Opinion and Order (Docket No. 44 in Case No. H- 04-0087). 193. On April 5, 2004, defendant Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy LLP (“Milbank”) filed a motion to dismiss the complaint against it (Docket Nos. 19-20 in Case No. H-04-0088), which argued for dismissal because Milbank was too far removed from the Enron fraud to be held liable; the complaint failed to allege a primary violation or scienter; Milbank failed to make a false statement, misleading omission, or perform a fraudulent act; and reliance was lacking. On June 7, 2004, Lead Plaintiff filed an 89-page opposition (Docket No. 29 in Case No. H-04-0088), which argued that Milbank was liable as a primary violator; and the complaint adequately pled scienter. The Court granted the motion, ruling that the complaint failed to identify with particularity any material misrepresentations or omissions by Milbank, and failed to plead scienter adequately; and Milbank’s alleged conduct was insufficient for liability under the securities laws. See 12/5/05 Opinion and Order re Motions to Dismiss (Docket No. 46 in Case No. H-04-0088) at 42-54. 194. On April 7, 2004, Lead Counsel filed Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Order Dismissing Claims Against Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (Docket No. 2067), which argued for reinstatement of claims against the defendant concerning a 1999 securities offering that were dismissed as time-barred. On April 27, 2004, CIBC filed an opposition (Docket No. 2108) which argued against reconsideration because the subject claims were time-barred. The Court granted the motion, reinstating certain claims against a CIBC parent entity. See 6/21/05 Opinion and Order (Docket No. 3626) at 15. - 110 -
195. On April 13, 2004, defendants Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and Lehman Brothers Inc. filed a motion for reconsideration of their motion to dismiss (Docket No. 2079), which argued that certain claims against the subsidiary entity were time-barred under the Court’s prior rulings and that a derivative claim for control person liability against a parent entity was thus deficient. On April 16, 2004, Lead Counsel filed Lead Plaintiff’s Opposition to Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s and Lehman Brothers Inc.’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Lehman Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 2094), which argued that Lead Plaintiff may still maintain a claim for control person liability against a Lehman Brothers parent entity notwithstanding the fact that its claim for primary liability against a subsidiary was time-barred. Lehman’s motion for reconsideration was not ruled on at the time the parties settled the case. 196. On April 14, 2004, defendants Bank of America Corporation and Banc of America Securities LLC filed a motion for reconsideration of the BofA defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docket No. 2086), which argued that the Court overlooked its argument that certain claims against a subsidiary were time-barred; and because they were time-barred, a derivative claim for control person liability against a parent entity was thus deficient. On April 16, 2004, Lead Counsel filed Lead Plaintiff’s Opposition to Bank of America Corporation’s and Banc of America Securities LLC’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Bank of America Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 2093), which argued that Lead Plaintiff’s claims were not time-barred; and dismissal of a claim for primary liability against a subsidiary does not preclude a claim for control person liability against a parent entity. The Court dismissed the claims against the subsidiary, but sustained the control person claim against the parent entity. BofA’s motion for reconsideration was not ruled on at the time the parties settled the case. 197. On April 19, 2004, defendant JPMorgan filed a motion a Motion to Reconsider the Court’s April 5, 2004 Order re: JPMorgan Defendants (Docket No. 2095), arguing that Lead - 111 -
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 and 110: securities, understanding of a repr
Page 111 and 112: 187. Lead Counsel made further supp
Page 113: April 16, 2004, Lead Counsel filed
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?