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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

scenario that if the truth were told, Enron was insolvent by year-end 1999 and that fact would have been revealed no later than March 30, 2000, when Enron filed its Form 10-K. 227. To efficiently conduct discovery and prepare the trial evidence for a simple, but compelling presentation, we spent considerable time working with our experts and consultants, to identify the types of information that best proved defendants’ wrongdoing, and to help our experts form their opinions, based on the hundreds of thousands of documents reviewed to establish evidence of defendants’ knowing participation or severe recklessness in the alleged fraud. Moreover, proving damages in a securities case is always a complicated matter, but especially so here because of the number of securities involved, the wide disparity in the experts’ view, the complex financial vehicles, and the novel legal issues. The range of damages by the experts presented us with not only the task of simplifying the discussion for a jury, but also the issue of how to rebut the considerable efforts by the banks to demonstrate that the Company’s stock-price decline in 2001 was an energy-sector-wide effect not attributable to their Enron transactions or conduct – they were just doing banking business. In addition, we gathered and analyzed evidence to prove loss causation while defendants argued that we could not prove loss causation because their fraud was not revealed until after Enron’s stock price had fallen and Enron was in bankruptcy. 228. Lead Counsel’s work with its experts, in preparing their substantive reports, and in pretrial preparation, entailed culling from an overwhelming amount of relevant data the most telling evidence and then repeatedly simplifying it in understandable diagrams, and comparatively few documents and persuasive bullet points for the jury. XI. REPRESENTING THE CLASS IN ENRON’S AND LJM2’S BANKRUPTCY CASES 229. In December 2001, I reviewed Enron’s bankruptcy docket and oversaw preparation of our pleadings for filing there. I coordinated those efforts with attorneys from our New York office. - 128 -
We filed a notice of request for service of pleadings and reviewed the multiple filings of other parties there in an effort to be informed and proactive on behalf of the securities plaintiffs. 230. In March 2002, our bankruptcy counsel, Craig Rieders of Genovese Joblove & Battista, P.A., was busy negotiating an order for the appointment of an examiner. The order appointing the examiner was an outgrowth of our motion for the appointment of a trustee. Bankruptcy Judge Gonzalez entered the order for appointment of an examiner on April 8, 2002. 231. On June 11, 2002, I and others met with Neal Batson, the newly-appointed Enron Bankruptcy Examiner. Batson, who was charged with examining Enron’s special purpose entities, took our Consolidated Complaint as his roadmap, and since he could subpoena documents and take depositions while our discovery was stayed, he proceeded to obtain evidence not then available to us. We moved to lift the stay of discovery as to Enron to obtain documents Enron had already provided to government agencies. Through our motion practice first before Judge Gonzalez and then before Judge Harmon, by mid-August 2002, we had orders allowing us access to documents Enron had previously provided to government agencies. Many more months passed before we actually received any such documents. 232. Craig Rieders filed a motion to grant us access to certain discovery that was available to parties in Enron’s bankruptcy case. Judge Gonzalez denied us access to the so-called Rule 2004 discovery. 233. In September 2002, we drafted and reviewed pleadings for filing a Class proof of claim in the Enron bankruptcy and the motion to lift the stay of discovery against Enron; we also reviewed documents from and discussed strategy for the LJM2 bankruptcy. 234. In January 2003, I prepared for and appeared with Craig Rieders before Judge Gonzalez on our motion to lift the stay as to Enron. We argued the automatic bankruptcy stay should be lifted as to Enron so that Lead Plaintiff could add Enron as a defendant in Newby. We - 129 -
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 and 128: nature of Enron’s financial condi
Page 129 and 130: economically valid method and frame
Page 131: primarily involving Deutsche Bank,
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?