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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

and failed to allege loss causation or reliance under Greenberg. See 7/7/06 Opinion and Order re Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 5391) at 44-45. 266. On June 26, 2006, Barclays filed a motion for summary judgment (Docket Nos. 4817, 4818), which argued for judgment because there was no evidence that Barclays committed a primary violation of §10(b) and Rule 10b-5; plaintiffs’ scheme theory was not supported by the evidence and was inconsistent with Central Bank and the PSLRA; plaintiffs’ damages theories were invalid as a matter of law; plaintiffs could not maintain a §10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim against Barclays PLC or Barclays Capital Inc.; and plaintiffs could not maintain a §20(a) control person claim against Barclays PLC. On January 19, 2007, Barclays filed a supplemental memorandum in support of their motion (Docket No. 5333), which argued for judgment because there was no evidence that Barclays committed a primary violation of the securities laws. On February 8, 2007, Lead Counsel filed Lead Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Barclays Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 5385), which totaled 166 pages. The opposition argued against judgment because there existed triable issues of fact concerning whether: Barclays committed primary acts of deception under Rule 10b-5(a) and (c); Barclays violated Rule 10b-5(b); Barclays acted with scienter; Barclays’ deceptive conduct was in connection with a purchase or sale of securities; there was loss causation present; and whether reliance was present. The opposition also argued against summary judgment because Lead Plaintiff had viable claims as to all the Barclays entities sued. The Court had not issued a ruling on the motion by the time the case was stayed. 267. On June 26, 2006, Merrill Lynch filed a motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 4816), which argued for judgment because plaintiff could not prove reliance, loss causation or a primary violation of the securities laws with regard to it, and because Merrill Lynch was not subject to joint-and-several liability under the law. On November 13, 2006, Lead Counsel filed Lead - 146 -
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 5197) filed by defendants Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated and Merrill Lynch Co., Inc., which argued against summary judgment because Merrill Lynch committed a primary violation of the securities laws; Lead Plaintiff was entitled to a presumption of reliance; the evidence establishes loss causation; and there existed a triable issue of fact that Merrill Lynch was subject to joint and several liability. The opposition cited to 52 deposition exhibits, 4 core exhibits, 102 Bates-range documents, 44 deposition transcripts and 10 expert reports. On January 26, 2007, Merrill Lynch filed the Supplemental Submission of Defendants Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated and Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 5359), which argued for summary judgment because plaintiff’s evidence failed to demonstrate a primary violation of the securities laws; Merrill Lynch did not cause the losses plaintiff sought to recover; Merrill Lynch was not jointly and severally liable for transactions in which it did not participate; and plaintiff did not rely on Merrill Lynch’s conduct. In response, on March 2, 2007, Lead Counsel filed Lead Plaintiff’s Response to “Supplemental Submission” of Merrill Lynch Defendants in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 5465), which argued against summary judgment because Merrill Lynch committed a primary violation of the securities laws; the issue of Merrill Lynch’s joint-and-several liability was a jury question; and loss causation and reliance were present. The Court had not issued a ruling on the motion by the time the case was stayed. 268. On June 26, 2006, Credit Suisse filed a motion for summary judgment (Docket Nos. 4824, 4825), which argued for summary judgment because the FACC’s allegations concerning CSFB’s structuring of Enron transactions were false; discovery had disproved other allegations concerning CSFB’s work for Enron; the Court’s class certification order disposed of other claims against CSFB; CSFB did not commit a primary violation of the securities laws; loss causation was absent; and the claim for control person liability could not be maintained. On July 7, 2006, CSFB - 147 -
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 99 and 100: 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 and 148: Opposition to Deutsche Bank’s Mot
Page 149: Sec. Litig., 443 F.3d 987 (8th Cir.
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?