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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

also addressed how important an investment grade credit rating was to Enron. She opined that if the rating agencies had not been deceived, they would have rated Enron’s debt as “junk.” <strong>In</strong> her rebuttal to three experts for defendants, she concluded that Enron’s true financial results warranted a belowinvestment grade rating as of year-end 1998, disclosure of Enron’s financial machinations would have caused its credit rating to be downgraded in 1999 and that the downgrade would have precipitated a death spiral. 219. Mr. Charles Drott is a Certified Public Accountant and a Certified Fraud Examiner with over 40 years of experience. Mr. Drott has formerly served as an audit engagement partner and served as a professional standards review partner for two major public accounting firms. Mr. Drott submitted an expert report opining on the significance to independent auditors of concealed agreements or undisclosed understandings, including concealed agreements in certain Enron-related transactions such as LJM1, Nile, 1999 Electricity Trades, Nigerian Barges and J.T. Holdings, among others. Mr. Drott testified that there was persuasive evidence that material information was concealed from Andersen. Had Andersen known about the concealed information, it would not have approved Enron’s accounting for certain transactions. His testimony supported our effort to rebut the banks’ attempt to blame Andersen for Enron’s false financial statements. 220. Dr. Scott Hakala is a Chartered Financial Analyst and is a director of CBIZ Valuation Group, LLC, a national business valuation and consulting firm. Dr. Hakala holds a Doctor of Philosophy degree in Economics and a B.A. in Economics from the University of Minnesota. Dr. Hakala submitted an expert rebuttal report concerning loss causation, damages, and further opined on the validity of Dr. Nye’s analyses, methodologies, and conclusions concerning loss causation and damages. Additionally, Dr. Hakala provided expert rebuttal opinions to the expert reports filed by numerous defense experts, including Messrs. Tabak, Dunbar, Gibbons, Barclay, Cornell, Schwert, Fischel, Kearns and Greenspan. Dr. Hakala concluded that Dr. Nye’s analysis provided an - 124 -
economically valid method and framework to properly measure economic loss and that the criticisms of Dr. Nye’s report were either immaterial, conceptually wrong or inconsistent with the facts of the case. Dr. Hakala was deposed for two days in May 2006. 221. Mr. Joel Finard is a Chartered Financial Analyst and was an economics teacher with the Columbia Graduate School of Business. Mr. Finard has more than 19 years of experience working with the world’s leading institutions in the financial services industry. Mr. Finard has significant experience and expertise in management oversight, and has operational expertise in managing credit, market and operations risk at multinational financial institutions. Mr. Finard opined whether, in consummating the Enron-related transactions, certain defendant financial institutions violated government regulations and deviated from industry and internal standards. Among the transactions Mr. Finard examined were the LJM1/Rhythms transaction, the 1999 Electricity Trades, the Yosemite III transaction and the SO 2 transaction. Mr. Finard also submitted an expert rebuttal report in response to numerous defense expert reports challenging his conclusions about the propriety of defendants’ conduct in creating, funding and executing Enron-related transactions. Mr. Finard was deposed in May 2006. 222. Dr. George Cohen is a Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law. He earned a J.D. and Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Cohen is a recognized expert on legal ethics and professional responsibility, and has previously rendered expert opinions on legal malpractice matters and has testified before Congress about the regulation of corporate lawyers. Dr. Cohen expertly opined V&E violated professional standards and committed fraud in Enron-related transactions, and opined V&E committed fraud by engaging in the whitewashed Watkins’ “investigation,” an investigation V&E should never have undertaken because it was hopelessly conflicted. He further opined V&E lawyers, through their expertise, experience and interaction, either understood or recklessly failed to understand the basic fraudulent nature of the - 125 -
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 and 116: 195. On April 13, 2004, defendants
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: nature of Enron’s financial condi
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?