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

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 -