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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

filed a notice of new authority (Docket No. 4845) in support of its motion, concerning Simpson v. AOL Time Warner Inc., 452 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2006). On July 25, 2006, CSFB filed a supplemental memorandum in support of their motion (Docket No. 4893) which concerned the Court’s July 20, 2005 Order dismissing Barclays. In response to all of these filing, on November 13, 2006, Lead Counsel filed Lead Plaintiff’s Opposition to the CSFB Defendants’ Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 5217), which totaled 289 pages. The opposition argued against summary judgment because there existed a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether CSFB committed a primary violation of Rule 10b- 5(a) and (c); there existed a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether CSFB committed a primary violation of Rule 10b-5(b); CSFB’s conduct was “in connection with” the purchase and sale of Enron securities; there was a genuine issue of material fact concerning loss causation; and CSFB (USA) is liable as a control person. The Court had not issued a ruling on the motion by the time the case was stayed. 269. On July 7, 2006, the Financial Institution Defendants filed an Opposition to Lead Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order Dated June 5, 2006 as It Pertains to Deutsche Bank; and Cross Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Opinion and Order re Class Certification, dated June 5, 2006, as It Pertains to Affiliated Ute (Docket No. 4844). The Financial Institution Defendants argued that the Court correctly ruled that the Foreign Debt Securities purchasers were not part of the Newby class; and sought reconsideration of the Court’s ruling that plaintiffs were entitled to a presumption of reliance on their claims under Rule 10b-5(a) and (c), arguing that the presumption was inapplicable to the case. On July 27, 2006, Lead Counsel filed Lead Plaintiff’s Response to the Financial Institution Defendants’ (1) Opposition to “Lead Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order dated June 5, 2006 as It Pertains to Deutsche Bank” and (2) Cross-Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Opinion and Order re Class Certification, - 148 -
dated June 5, 2006 as It Pertains to Affiliated Ute (Docket No. 4898). The Response argued that Lead Plaintiff had standing to pursue claims concerning the Foreign Debt Securities, and that Lead Plaintiff were entitled to the presumption of reliance under Affiliated Ute. As mentioned above, the Court denied Lead Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. With regard to the financial institutions defendants’ submission, the Court denied the cross-motion, preserving its ruling on the application of Affiliated Ute for a presumption of reliance on claims under Rule 10b-5(a) and (c). See 2/8/07 Opinion and Order re Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 5391) at 44-45. 270. On July 17, 2006 and July 18, 2006, defendants Credit Suisse, V&E, Barclays and Merrill Lynch filed petitions in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals seeking interlocutory review under Rule 23(f) of the Court’s order granting class certification. In the petitions, Credit Suisse argued that an appeal was warranted because it would resolve the controlling and unsettled question of a secondary actor’s primary liability, provide guidance on the issue of joint and several liability and the Court erred in applying the Affiliated Ute presumption of reliance; V&E argued for appeal because the Court’s application of the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance rested on a flawed theory of liability, later review was threatened by the amount of damages claimed, and Lead Plaintiff lacked standing to sue the defendant for Enron’s statements; Barclays argued for appeal because the Court’s class certification decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of Central Bank and the PSLRA, the Court erroneously held that two presumptions of reliance were applicable, and the Court misinterpreted the scope of joint-and-several liability; Merrill Lynch argued for appeal to review the Court’s ruling on the question of primary liability, because the Affiliated Ute presumption did not apply, the requirements of Greenberg were not met, and addressing the application of joint-and-several liability would resolve a novel question of law fundamental to class certification. On July 28, 2006, Lead Counsel filed Plaintiffs’ Combined Answer in Opposition to Credit Suisse’s, Merrill Lynch’s, Vinson & Elkins’ Petitions for Permission to Appeal (Fed. R. Civ. - 149 -
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 101 and 102: Deponent Entity Date[s] Location No
Page 103 and 104: 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 and 150: Sec. Litig., 443 F.3d 987 (8th Cir.
Page 151: Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion
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?