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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

control of Lead Counsel on August 30, 2002, and have drawn interest for the benefit of the Class since then. While the amount was agreed upon in August 2002, completing the documentation was time-consuming primarily because AWSC was going into liquidation. 239. At the status conference held May 28, 2003, the Court ordered us to mediation with the banks. Our team gathered and reviewed information for the upcoming mediation. We had to evaluate not only our case against the banks, but also the other plaintiffs’ like the Tittle (ERISA) plaintiffs and the Enron estate. We consulted experts for the purpose of estimating and substantiating the investors’ losses. In addition, we gathered information about the banks’ financial condition and relative ability to meet a judgment. For purposes of the mediation we thought there was no question but that we had a solid case on liability based on the investigation to date. We had no formal discovery from the banks at that time. Judge Connor held a planning session for the mediation on June 30 in his courtroom in White Plains, New York. 240. Our mediation statement was finalized in August 2003 after countless drafts and revisions to hone it in to a persuasive explanation for why the banks should pay billions to investors. As soon as ours was shipped out, we began to read the mediation statements of other plaintiffs and the defendants, which practically filled a banker’s box. 241. We responded to Judge Connor’s questions regarding investors’ damages and submitted a supplement to our mediation statement at his request. Judge Connor presided over the first substantive mediation on September 29, 2003. 242. We prepared for and attended the continued mediation with Judge Connor in White Plains in February 2004; those Court-ordered mediation sessions were not fruitful. However, within a few months, counsel for BofA and for Lehman contacted us regarding private mediation. We scheduled a mediation before Judge Daniel Weinstein (Ret.) at JAMS in San Francisco, and the initial meeting was May 26, 2004. In preparation for the mediation, we gathered and reviewed data - 132 -
egarding the §11 claims, which were the only claims remaining against BofA and Lehman. We drafted a demand letter and the mediation statement with input from Chris Patti, University Counsel for The Regents. With Judge Weinstein’s assistance we negotiated an agreement with BofA quickly, and the $69 million settlement began earning interest for the benefit of the Class in late May. The agreement to settle with Lehman required more lengthy discussions and meetings over several months. After months of hard-fought negotiations and further review of the remaining claims, we reached an agreement to settle with Lehman for $222.5 million, which began to earn interest on October 27, 2004. We worked with counsel for the banks to memorialize the agreements in stipulations of settlement. Both of these settlements are excellent results for the Class. At the time these settlements were negotiated, the only claims remaining were §11 claims, which, against underwriters, are limited to the amount of the securities they sold. Lehman and BofA sold notes and holders of the notes were entitled to receive a recovery in Enron’s bankruptcy. Consequently, Lehman and BofA argued that their exposure was reduced due to the bankruptcy recovery, at that time estimated to be about 17%. In addition, private plaintiffs had sued these same banks and the banks argued those private plaintiffs’ claims should reduce their exposure to the Class. We believed that the settlements with Lehman and BofA were in excess of 50% of their exposure to the Class. The Class also benefited from the early settlement of these claims (before depositions) so that we could focus our resources on pursuing the banks who had §10(b) liability. 243. Kathy Patrick, counsel for the Outside Directors, contacted Professor Eric Green in October 2004 to set up a mediation. We gathered and reviewed the directors and officers’ (“D&O”) insurance policies at issue and we promptly convened with Professor Green in Boston. At the same time we had reached an agreement with Lehman with Judge Weinstein’s diligent efforts and we drafted the memorandum of understanding regarding Lehman. Settlement discussions with the Outside Directors were complicated because in order to secure the insurance proceeds for the benefit - 133 -
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 and 132: primarily involving Deutsche Bank,
Page 133 and 134: We filed a notice of request for se
Page 135: 236. Bankruptcy Examiner Batson him
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?