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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

eversed this Court’s class certification order on a Rule 23(f) interlocutory appeal, ruling that earlier decisions upholding scheme liability were erroneous, and that because no scheme liability existed, no class could be certified, thus bringing this case to an abrupt halt, preventing any further proceedings in the district court on the pending summary judgment motions or the scheduled trial. A petition for a writ of certiorari on this issue is pending. 11. The adverse ruling of the Fifth Circuit further demonstrates how outstanding the $6.6 billion recovery was on the fraudulent scheme claims against Citigroup, JPMorgan and CIBC. Taken at face value, this decision means that Coughlin Stoia’s skill and efforts produced a $6.6 billion recovery – itself the largest securities fraud recovery in history – on a legal theory that was ultimately rejected by the Appellate Court in this Circuit. 12. Consistent with the determination and excellence that it has brought to bear on this case from the outset, Coughlin Stoia has continued to press forward to overcome the adverse ruling of the Fifth Circuit panel. So as to present the case to the Supreme Court for review quickly, before the end of its 2006 term, and so that review of Enron might be considered in connection with another case presenting the scheme liability issue already pending before the Supreme Court, Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., No. 06-43 (“Stoneridge”), Coughlin Stoia quickly prepared and filed a certiorari petition. 13. Coughlin Stoia’s continued devotion to the case did not stop with the drafting of the certiorari petition. We also realized that the fraudulent scheme liability issue – and thus the fate of The Regents’ case and the Enron victims’ cause – would likely be determined in the Stoneridge appeal, regardless of whether the Enron case itself was ever accepted for review by the Supreme Court. So, Coughlin Stoia undertook a massive effort to put together an amicus curiae program in support of the plaintiffs’ deceptive device/fraudulent scheme position in the Stoneridge case. - 8 -
14. In this endeavor, Coughlin Stoia’s efforts have met with unprecedented success. Thirty-three of the nation’s State Attorneys General, under the joint leadership of the Texas Republican Attorney General and the Ohio Democratic Attorney General, filed a Stoneridge amicus curiae brief in support of deceptive device/fraudulent scheme liability theory. Further, Coughlin Stoia persuaded the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) – comprised of state equivalents of the SEC – to file an amicus curiae brief in favor of fraudulent conduct/scheme liability. Coughlin Stoia intervened with the Council of Institutional Investors, the most important and prestigious institutional investor organization in America, to persuade it to appear amicus curiae in favor of the deceptive device/scheme liability in the Supreme Court. Coughlin Stoia also encouraged the filing of amicus curiae briefs by Change to Win (a major labor organization), the American Association of Retired Persons and the Consumer Federation of America and several other large public pension funds and investor organizations. Coughlin Stoia also prepared an amicus curiae brief for The Regents in the Stoneridge case and provided substantial assistance in the preparation of the brief for a group of law professors – recognized experts in securities law – for their amicus curiae filing in support of the defrauded investors. 15. In addition, the firm was successful in persuading the SEC to vote to file a brief in support of the deceptive device/scheme liability reading of §10(b) and Rule 10b-5 in the Supreme Court. The fact that the DOJ went against the recommendation of the SEC by refusing to file an amicus curiae brief supporting scheme liability – and actually filing one against the SEC’s position – only shows how hard fought this issue was and the incredible power of the forces on the other side of these issues. 16. The litigation has spanned more than five years and the following is a summary of significant events that occurred during its duration: - 9 -
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: gathered and which the banks and En
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 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
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 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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?