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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

286. In consultation with Chris Patti, we decided to publish a draft of the plan of allocation for public comment. To our knowledge, this is unprecedented in securities class actions. We wanted to do everything possible to generate a plan that was fair to all. In July we published the draft plan of allocation and made it available on the website www.enronfraud.com. We solicited comments from the public and we also sent the draft plan to interested persons who had contacted us in the past regarding the plan of allocation. 287. We reviewed the comments received. We answered questions and provided information to those who asked about the plan. We made a few adjustments to the plan to address some comments received. In addition, we continued to review the plan amongst ourselves, with Stanford Consulting and with Roman Weil. 288. The time and attention we devoted to generating the plan of allocation was extraordinary. Two of my partners and I spent many days on this project over the last six months. The proposed plan of allocation reflects our evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the claims of Class members and fairly allocates the recovery among Class members in accordance with Lead Plaintiff’s theories of damages in the case. Thus, a claimant’s Recognized Claim is based upon Lead Plaintiff’s contention of the estimated artificial inflation in the price paid for Enron securities. The estimated inflation equals the excess amount that Class members allegedly paid over fair market value for the securities, less any inflation that existed at the time of sale. 289. In addition to Lead Plaintiff’s, Coughlin Stoia’s lawyers’ and Stanford Consulting’s input and review, we retained Roman Weil to opine on the fairness of the proposed plan of allocation. See Declaration of Roman Weil submitted herewith. In In re Cendant Corp. Litig., No. 98-1664 (WHW) (D.N.J.), Mr. Weil evaluated the methods used in the plan of allocation to decide whether it was fair, reasonable and adequate and he opined on whether the court should reject plaintiffs’ proposed plan of allocation in favor of an objector’s proposal. His opinion was accepted - 156 -
y the court and cited in In re Cendant Corp. Sec. Litig., 109 F. Supp. 3d 235 (D.N.J. 2000), aff’d, 264 F.3d 201 (3d Cir. 2001). In Enron, after his review of the initial plan of allocation published in July, the comments received and the proposed plan of allocation that was presented to the Court for preliminary approval, Mr. Weil opined that the proposed plan is fair, reasonable and adequate. XV. THE FEE REQUEST IS REASONABLE 290. Because the requested fee percentage was negotiated by The Regents at the inception of the case, because of the tremendous risks to obtaining any recovery, let alone a record recovery, and because of the lawyers’ outstanding advocacy on behalf of the Class throughout this litigation, the fee requested is reasonable. The requested fee is appropriate under both the percentage of fund methodology and analysis of the Johnson factors for the reasons stated above in this Declaration and in the Memorandum of Law in Support of Fee Award and Reimbursement of Plaintiffs’ Expenses. 291. To assist the Court in evaluating the requested fee, I have prepared an analysis of the fee awards granted in connection with the Top Securities Settlements (Ex. 5). I provide the following information for each of the Top Securities Settlements: (1) the settlement amount; (2) the reported lodestar; (3) the fee awarded in terms of dollars and stated as a percentage of the settlement amount; and (4) the amount of discovery taken in the litigation and the stage of the litigation when the case settled. 292. I have also calculated and included aggregate and average figures for the Top Securities Settlements. I have included for comparison purposes at the bottom of the Top Securities Settlements Chart, the statistics that would accompany the 9.52% fee request in this case. See Ex. 5. 293. As reflected on the Top Securities Settlements Chart, the fee request falls below the middle of the range of the other percentage awards, which range from 1.73% to 21.4%, in these post- PSLRA cases with settlements at or above $400 million. On average the fee award in the Top Securities Settlements is 11.61%, which is higher than the 9.52% requested here. - 157 -
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:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
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 and 152: Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion
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: pricing or trade volume data, estim
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?