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

P. 23(f)), which argued against the grant of permission to appeal because the merits issues raised by
petitioners could be addressed on direct appeal; the grant of class certification would not force any of
the remaining defendants to settle; and the issues raised in the petitions were substantive questions of
liability and damages not cognizable under Rule 23(f).
271. On August 2, 2006, Royal Bank of Canada filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings (Docket No. 81 in Case No. H-04-0087), which argued for judgment because the
complaint failed to state a primary violation against it. On September 29, 2006, Lead Counsel filed
the Response of The Regents of the University of California to The Royal Bank of Canada
Defendants’ Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings (Docket No. 94 in Case No. H-04-0087), which argued against judgment because Lead
Plaintiff had pled, or was able to plead, claims that satisfy the standard of primary liability adopted
by the Court. The Court had not issued a ruling on the motion at the time the case was stayed.
272. On August 3, 2006, Lead Counsel filed Lead Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration,
or in the Alternative, Clarification of Order Granting Barclays’ PLC Motion for Summary Judgment
on the Pleadings (Docket No. 4915). The motion argued that the grant of Barclays’ motion was
procedurally erroneous, because it retroactively applied refined rules of liability to previous
pleadings. The motion requested the Court either vacate or stay its recent ruling on Barclays and
revisit the issue in the course of deciding the bank defendants’ motions for summary judgment, or
specify that the dismissal of Barclays was without prejudice, allowing Lead Plaintiff leave to amend
its complaint. On August 23, 2006, Barclays filed an opposition (Docket No. 4975), which argued
that the Court’s decision was procedurally proper, and that the Court properly determined that Lead
Plaintiff could not state a claim against Barclays as a matter of law. On September 12, 2006, Lead
Counsel filed Lead Plaintiff’s Reply Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Reconsideration, or
in the Alternative, Clarification of Order Granting Barclays Plc’s Motion for Summary Judgment on
- 150 -