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

joint-and-several liability for knowingly engaging in a scheme to defraud does not defeat the losscausation
requirement.
276. In January 2007, we prepared for oral argument before the Fifth Circuit, which was
set for February 5, 2007.
277. On March 19, 2007, the Fifth Circuit issued an order which reversed and remanded
the Court’s class certification decision. See Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Credit Suisse First
Boston, 482 F.3d 372 (5th Cir. 2007).
278. On April 5, 2007, Lead Counsel filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the Supreme
Court of the United States. The Petition requested issuance of the writ because review was needed
to resolve a clear conflict in the circuits and other lower courts; the Fifth Circuit’s decision was
wrong and dramatically misreads statutory language and the Supreme Court’s precedents; and the
case was a suitable companion to Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., which
the Supreme Court recently accepted for review.
279. On June 1, 2007, Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse and Barclays filed a brief in opposition
to the Petition, which argued against issuance of the writ because review of this case would not aid
in disposition of Stoneridge; the case was a poor vehicle for resolution of the issues; and the Fifth
Circuit correctly applied Central Bank.
280. On June 11, 2007, Lead Counsel filed Petitioner’s Reply to Brief in Opposition to
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. The Reply argued for issuance of the writ because the case was a
preferred vehicle for consideration of the scheme/conduct liability issue; the Fifth Circuit’s classcertification
denial was based on its ruling that scheme liability does not exist under §10(b)/Rule
10b-5; and respondents’ substantive arguments regarding scheme or conduct liability merely confirm
the need for the Supreme Court to resolve the issue.
- 153 -