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

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 -