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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

259. On August 3, 2005, Lead Counsel filed Lead Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Against Defendant Merrill Lynch for Knowingly Committing Deceptive Acts in Furtherance of a Scheme to Defraud (Docket No. 3772), which argued for partial summary judgment because the convictions of Merrill Lynch’s employees established the charges against them and thus established Lead Plaintiff’s allegations against Merrill Lynch. On September 22, 2005, Merrill Lynch filed an opposition (Docket No. 3937), which argued against summary judgment because the motion was procedurally improper; Lead Plaintiff had failed to establish a violation of the securities laws; and Merrill Lynch was not subject to joint and several liability. On October 31, 2005, Lead Counsel filed Lead Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Against Defendant Merrill Lynch (Docket No. 4105), which reasserted that partial summary judgment was procedurally proper and warranted. The Court denied the motion, finding that the convictions of the Merrill Lynch employees failed to provide a proper basis for summary judgment because they were on appeal. See 7/31/06 Order re Lead Plaintiff’s Partial Summary Judgment re Merrill Lynch (Docket No. 4904) at 2-3. 260. On August 9, 2005, Deutsche Bank filed The Deutsche Bank Entities’ Memorandum in Support of (1) Motion for Partial Reconsideration and Dismissal or (2) Motion to Require a Second Amended Complaint Before a Response by the Deutsche Bank Entities (Docket No. 3791). The motion argued that Lead Plaintiff had failed to satisfy the scienter pleading requirements of Southland, 365 F.3d 353; the loss causation pleading requirements of Dura, 544 U.S. 336; and also that aspects of Lead Plaintiff’s claims, as articulated in briefing, were not pled in the FACC. The motion requested that either Lead Plaintiff’s Exchange Act claims be dismissed; or that Lead Plaintiff be required to plead its claims in full. On August 29, 2005, Lead Counsel filed its Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint as to Deutsche Bank, Motion for Entry of an Order Requiring Deutsche Bank to Answer Lead Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and Lead Plaintiff’s - 142 -
Opposition to Deutsche Bank’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration and Dismissal (Docket No. 3850). Lead Plaintiff argued that its scienter and loss causation allegations were adequate; and that because it filed an amendment to the FACC containing additional allegations against Deutsche Bank, that defendant’s request that Lead Plaintiff replead its claims was moot. The Court dismissed the claims, ruling that Lead Plaintiff lacked standing to bring claims under §12(a)(2); Lead Plaintiff’s claims concerning the Foreign Debt Securities did not qualify for a presumption of reliance under Greenberg, 364 F.3d 657; Lead Plaintiff failed to allege loss causation; claims concerning analyst statements failed to adequately allege scienter; and Lead Plaintiff’s scheme liability allegations were insufficient to present a claim for primary liability. See 6/5/06 Opinion and Order re Class Certification (Docket No. 4735) at 175-83. 261. On January 17, 2006, TD filed a corrected motion to dismiss (Docket No. 56 in Case No. H-03-5528) which argued for dismissal because the complaint failed to plead loss causation in conformity with Dura, 544 U.S. 336, and failed to plead a primary violation of the securities laws. On January 25, 2006, Lead Counsel filed an opposition (Docket No. 57 in Case No. H-03-5528), which argued that Lead Plaintiff had pled loss causation in conformity with Dura and that the defendant committed a primary violation of the securities laws. This Court has not yet ruled on this motion. 262. On January 27, 2006, RBC filed a motion requesting certification of the Court’s order denying its motion to dismiss pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1292(b) (Docket No. 55 in Case No. H-04- 0087). On February 21, 2006, Lead Counsel filed Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the RBC Defendants’ Memorandum of Law and Motion for Certification Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1292(b) (Docket No. 61 in Case No. H-04-0087), which argued that interlocutory appeal was inappropriate, because RBC identified no controlling question of law; no substantial ground for difference of opinion exists; and an immediate appeal would not materially advance the termination of the litigation. The Court - 143 -
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 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: Court ruled that Lead Plaintiff fai
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?