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

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 -