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

Plaintiff’s §10 claim against JPMorgan Chase Bank was time-barred. On April 26, 2004, Lead
Counsel filed Lead Plaintiff’s Opposition to JPMorgan’s Motion to Reconsider the Court’s April 5,
2004 Order (Docket No. 2107) (and later a sur-reply (Docket No. 2127)), which argued that the
claims were not time-barred because plaintiffs were not on inquiry notice of claims against the
defendant prior to filing their complaint. For the reasons advanced by Lead Plaintiff, the Court
denied the motion. See 6/14/05 Opinion and Order re JPMorgan Motion for Reconsideration
(Docket No. 3597) at 7.
198. On April 20, 2004, Lead Counsel filed Lead Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of
Order Dismissing Claims Against The Deutsche Bank Defendants (Docket No. 2101), seeking
reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal of Lead Plaintiff’s claims, which rested on a conclusion that
claims concerning conduct in certain tax transactions were time-barred. Lead Plaintiff argued that
other allegations in the complaint that the defendant made false and misleading statements, and
underwrote securities offerings, sufficed to state a claim for violation of the securities laws. On May
19, 2004, Deutsche Bank filed an opposition (Docket No. 2145), which argued that Lead Plaintiff’s
motion was procedurally improper; the claims in the complaint were untimely; and certain claims
lacked subject matter jurisdiction. In response, on June 14, 2004 Lead Counsel filed Lead Plaintiff’s
Reply Brief in Further Support of Its Motion for Reconsideration of Order Dismissing Claims
Against the Deutsche Bank Defendants (Docket No. 2199), which argued that Lead Plaintiff’s
motion was procedurally proper; the claims were not time-barred; and the complaint adequately pled
scienter and subject matter jurisdiction. The Court granted the motion, reinstating the §10 claims
against the defendant, and ruling that it had the requisite subject matter jurisdiction. See 7/26/05
Opinion and Order re Deutsche Bank Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 3727) at 15.
199. On April 30, 2004, plaintiffs Investors Partner Life Insurance Company, John
Hancock Life Insurance Company and John Hancock Variable Life Insurance Company filed
- 112 -