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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Company employees – contacts and referrals that were compiled in the LRH&A Developing Witness List (“DWL”); plus legal and industry sources, media and congressional contacts. 29. We also had investigators look for internal Company directories, and started to build employee profiles. Dividing the work between the west and east coast offices, by late-October we and LRH&A had developed some prospective witness resumes and identified focus areas, including the Blockbuster video-on-demand deal, dark-fiber swaps, and the LJM and JEDI investment entities. An immediate task was to identify and locate the author of the anonymous Enron-will-implode-inan-accounting-scandal letter, for which Sherron Watkins would become famous. Similarly, a consequence of publishing notice under the PSLRA was the receipt of both anonymous and attributed letters and calls, and the law firm’s shareholder-relations section fielded scores of these week after week. Regardless of the method of contact, all were annotated in the initial DWL, which would have some 40 iterations. We started with 57 prospective witnesses from general and industry research, which centered on identifying analysts and market reports containing information about the LJM partnerships. Launching the investigation included reviewing Internet searches, Intelligence Data research, SEC filings, plus establishing sources to assist us in the Cayman Islands, when all that was known about the LJM entities, in some respects, was that the first one was LJM Cayman. 30. The database researchers plumbed a host of sources, including chat-room message postings, which were growing exponentially, investment-fund reports and energy-sector materials. In pre-bankruptcy days, researchers and investigators spent considerable effort to confirm employment status, a prerequisite to contacting witnesses. In what was thought to be a substantial number – only to be dwarfed as the investigation continued – a preliminary list noted 56 Enronrelated partnerships, 19 investment vehicles, and 18 prospective witnesses. Each day brought a review of the growing number of media articles about the SEC’s investigation into off-balance-sheet accounting of transactions with the LJM entities and Enron’s penchant for opaque financial - 20 -
statements. We compiled profiles on all identified executives and Board members. Resumes of current and former employees were identified from various sources and were added to the latest DWL, including the confirmation in early November by an Enron receptionist of executives assigned to the defunct Broadband Services unit. Each day brought more topics for the database researchers: investments in JEDI, East Coast Power, The New Power Company, Azurix, and an entity known first only by its abbreviation – EES. Investigators, following employment confirmation, began initial contacts of prospective witnesses, while reviewing all media reports on the Company. 31. Through Form 8-K filings and press releases, we developed background data on key players: Fastow; his deputies Glisan, Mordaunt, Lynn, and Yeager; as well as the first glimpse of some Raptor investment entities: HGK, JSB, and Blackdog. The Company’s Form 8-K regarding a necessary four-year restatement in early November 2001, coupled with questionable related-party transactions, expanded research areas exponentially. Discreet calls were made during and after working hours to confirm, for example on one day, the employment status of 59 prospective witnesses, and that data was added to the latest DWL. Research into the LJM-related entities, and the relationship between subsidiary, partner, and investment interests from just a handful of documents, often produced more than 100 names, all of which were added to a database and researched for potential integration in the DWL. We retrieved court records from Oregon, New York, Delaware, and the Cayman Islands relating to prior cases involving Enron or defendants. 32. The announced Dynegy and Enron merger, before its dissolution at Thanksgiving 2001, compounded our workload, producing a host of new names and entities to be examined, including Enron Oil & Gas – the pipeline business – and executives Stan Horton and Forest Hoglund. Investigators drew upon their contacts from other cases with other companies who had done business with Enron, including key witnesses from Cisco and several Silicon Valley entities. Meanwhile, sources provided an internal Andersen directory and late-90s directories from Enron. - 21 -
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: published an article, “Enron Jolt
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 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?