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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 -
Plaintiffs’ Investors Partner Life Insurance Company, John Hancock Life Insurance Company, and John Hancock Variable Life Insurance Company, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (Docket No. 2368), which sought to join certain Andersen entities as defendants. In response, on August 30, 2004 Lead Plaintiff filed a notice (Docket No. 2370) objecting to these plaintiffs’ attempt to assert certain claims against certain Andersen entities, because such claims would be duplicative of claims Lead Plaintiff pursued and settled on behalf of the Class in connection with the Andersen Worldwide settlement. For this reason, the Court ordered those plaintiffs’ claims against the Andersen entities stricken from their amended complaint. See 10/25/04 Order re Andersen Claims (Docket No. 2494) at 2. 200. On May 7, 2004, Lead Counsel filed Lead Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Give Notice to Certain Class Members Pursuant to Rule 23(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Docket No. 2129). The motion requested notice to inform absent Class members who purchased the Foreign Debt Securities that they should step forward to act as class representatives, or risk having their Class claims dismissed in accordance with the Court’s previous ruling. The Court granted the motion. See 6/1/04 Order Granting Lead Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Give Notice to Certain Class Members Pursuant to Rule 23(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Docket No. 2180) at 1. IX. CLASS CERTIFICATION BRIEFING 201. In hindsight, class certification proceedings were one of the most important and, as it turned out, life-threatening aspects of the litigation. Briefing regarding Lead Plaintiff’s motion for class certification was extensive and complex. Lead Plaintiff filed its initial motion for class certification on October 1, 2002 (Docket No. 1048). The Regents, with 19 other proposed class representatives, sought certification of a Class of all persons who purchased Enron’s publicly traded equity and debt securities between October 19, 1998 and November 27, 2001, and were injured - 113 -
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 and 114: April 16, 2004, Lead Counsel filed
Page 115: 195. On April 13, 2004, defendants
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?