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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

248. Concurrently with the negotiations and drafting associated with the Outside Director and Harrison settlement in 2004, we were finalizing the memorandum of understanding and stipulation of settlement with Lehman. In November 2004 we also participated in a settlement meeting with counsel for CIBC and prepared for and drafted a mediation statement for a mediation with Goldman Sachs, which was overseen by Judge Weinstein in December 2004. 249. Early in January 2005, we finalized the Stipulation of Settlement with the Outside Directors and Harrison, which contained our agreement not only with those defendants, but also with Enron/Creditors Committee and the non-settling insureds. The stock sales proceeds and the insurance proceeds were transferred to an account under the control of Lead Counsel and have earned interest for the benefit of the Class since February 2005. Just after we filed that agreement and a motion for preliminary approval, we turned to the motion for preliminary approval of the BofA settlement and finalizing the Lehman stipulation of settlement because those banks wanted to get on the same schedule as we had for approval of the Outside Director settlement. The Court granted our request to expedite the motion to set a hearing for preliminary approval. We prepared for and attended the hearing on preliminary approval of the settlements with the Outside Directors, Harrison, BofA and Lehman on February 4, 2005. Thereafter we read objections to the settlements and reviewed our draft responses. We also addressed the concerns of State Street, the then fiduciary for the Enron ERISA Plans, as raised by its counsel, Paul Hastings, as well as objections by Lawrence Schonbrun and John Davis regarding the settlements and the notice to the Class. 250. I attended the hearing on final approval of the Outside Director, Harrison, BofA and Lehman settlements on April 11, 2005. Kevin Hannon objected to the use of the remaining D&O insurance to fund the Outside Director settlement. Because he had pled guilty, he was not a party to our agreement with some non-settling insureds for an allocation of the remaining insurance. He did everything he could to hold up the Outside Director settlement. He moved to compel arbitration - 136 -
egarding the policies and he moved for summary judgment in the interpleader action, in addition to filing a formal objection to the settlement. Consequently, while the BofA and Lehman settlements were soon approved by the Court, the Outside Director settlement was not approved until after the Court denied his motion for arbitration and he appealed that denial. Eventually, after negotiations overseen by Professor Green, we reached an agreement with Hannon, his objection was withdrawn, and the Court approved the Outside Director settlement. But that required more of our time and attention through March 2006. 251. In May 2005 the ongoing settlement discussions between our lawyers and Citigroup’s lawyers intensified. We closely evaluated the Class’ claims against Citigroup. After working through a number of issues, by early June we were exchanging term sheets. Both The Regents and Citigroup are extremely sophisticated and experienced litigants. In these negotiations both sides were represented by top lawyers who had the utmost respect for each other. As directed by The Regents, we pushed to maximize the investors’ recovery. Of course, Citigroup’s counsel at Paul Weiss was charged by their client with minimizing the payment. After months of tough negotiations, the result was one of the largest payments ever by a single defendant in a securities class action. On June 9, the parties and counsel signed a term sheet calling for a settlement for investors of $2 billion; Lead Counsel also insisted that the funds begin earning interest for the benefit of the Class from the day the term sheet was signed. This was not only a tremendous recovery for the Class in itself, but it also was a catalyst – and a benchmark – for settlements with more bank defendants. 252. On June 10, 2005, the day the Citigroup agreement was announced, we had a previously-scheduled meeting with lawyers for JPMorgan Chase in New York. We met with lawyers from Simpson Thacher. JPMorgan Chase, too, is a sophisticated litigant represented by excellent counsel. The Regents insisted that JPMorgan Chase pay more than Citigroup did so as to - 137 -
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 and 136: 236. Bankruptcy Examiner Batson him
Page 137 and 138: egarding the §11 claims, which wer
Page 139: proceeds for our settlement. Thus,
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?