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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

denied the motion, agreeing with certain arguments advanced by Lead Counsel. See 11/21/06 Opinion and Order re Motion for Class Certification (Docket No. 1071) at 5-6. 263. On April 13, 2006, V&E filed a 117-page motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 4590). The motion argued for summary judgment because defendant did not create any of Enron’s false and misleading statements; certain proxy statements did not violate the securities laws; defendant could not be held liable for structuring Enron’s transactions; defendant could not be held liable for legal opinions that were not communicated to the market; no V&E lawyer acted with scienter; loss causation was lacking; and claims for some conduct were time-barred. On June 13, 2006, Lead Counsel filed Lead Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment Filed by Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. (Docket No. 4771), which totaled 267 pages. The opposition argued against the grant of summary judgment because evidence of the defendant’s extensive involvement with Enron’s financial transactions, securities offerings and SEC disclosures established that it committed a primary violation of the securities laws; expert testimony confirmed that the defendant had knowing and/or reckless involvement in Enron’s contrived financial deals, fraudulent securities offerings, manipulated financial statements and false SEC filings; defendant’s false and misleading Item 404 disclosures violated §10(b) and Rule 10b-5; and the existence of factual issues as to loss causation, damages and the defendant’s state of mind precluded summary judgment. The opposition cited to 298 deposition exhibits, 17 core exhibits, 134 Bates-range documents, 30 deposition transcripts and 14 expert reports. V&E was dismissed from the case before the Court issued a ruling on the motion. 264. On April 24, 2006, TD filed a second supplemental memorandum of law in support of their motion to dismiss (Docket No. 62 in Case No. H-03-5528), which argued for dismissal on the ground that Lead Plaintiff had not adequately alleged the defendant’s commission of a primary violation of the securities laws in light of the Eighth Circuit’s decision in In re Charter Commc’ns - 144 -
Sec. Litig., 443 F.3d 987 (8th Cir. 2006). On May 15, 2006, Lead Counsel filed Plaintiffs’ Response to Second Supplemental Memorandum of Law of Toronto Dominion Defendants in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss in Light of New Authority (Docket No. 65 in Case No. H-03-5528), which argued that Charter did not warrant dismissal because it was non-binding, inapposite, and the complaint stated a claim for a primary violation of the securities laws against the defendant. 265. On June 21, 2006, Lead Counsel filed Lead Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order Dated June 5, 2006 as It Pertains to Deutsche Bank (Docket No. 4806), which argued that the Court failed to consider all of Lead Plaintiff’s briefing opposing Deutsche Bank’s motion for reconsideration; Lead Plaintiff’s claims should not be dismissed for lack of standing; Lead Plaintiff stated claims for primary violations of the securities laws against the defendant; the FACC adequately alleged loss causation and scienter; and Lead Plaintiff’s allegations did not fail Greenberg, 364 F.3d 657. On July 19, 2006, Deutsche Bank filed Deutsche Bank’s Opposition to Lead Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order Dated June 5, 2006, as It Pertains to Deutsche Bank (Docket No. 4864), which argued that the Court considered Lead Plaintiff’s briefs; Lead Plaintiff failed to allege a primary violation of the securities laws; Lead Plaintiff has failed to allege scienter; and the Court correctly ruled that Lead Plaintiff’ claims should be dismissed under Greenberg and for standing considerations. On September 1, 2006, Lead Counsel filed Lead Plaintiff’s Reply Brief in Support of its Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order Dated June 5, 2006 as It Pertains to Deutsche Bank (Docket No. 5006), which reasserted Lead Plaintiff’s arguments for reconsideration. The Court denied the motion for reconsideration, reasoning that it had considered Lead Plaintiff’s briefing; Lead Plaintiff had failed to remedy standing defects; the FACC failed to allege a primary violation of the securities laws against defendant; the FACC’s allegations concerning defendant failed to meet the pleading standards of the PSLRA and Rule 9(b), - 145 -
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 and 146: Court ruled that Lead Plaintiff fai
Page 147: Opposition to Deutsche Bank’s Mot
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?