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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

48. The Court held a hearing on the ex parte application, and the Court requested additional briefing. Lead Counsel responded on December 21, 2001, arguing the Court had the inherent authority under the federal securities laws to order disgorgement of insider trading proceeds under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), which expressly authorized district courts to grant equitable relief. 49. In its January 8, 2002 ruling the Court held that plaintiffs had “asserted cognizable claims to equitable relief” and the Court could properly consider “a prejudgment restraint on the assets defendants obtained by trading Enron stock.” 1/8/02 Memorandum Opinion and Order (Docket No. 111) at 44. The Court did not enter a TRO, deferring until the record was more fully developed. The Court sought additional briefing on Lead Plaintiff’s request for discovery. 50. On February 8, 2002, the Outside Directors moved for limited reconsideration of the Court’s January 8, 2002 Order (Docket No. 266), arguing the defendants owed no fiduciary duty to plaintiffs and thus plaintiffs had no cognizable claim for equitable relief. As the litigation progressed, Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel again sought discovery from Enron’s officers and directors, and were successful in opposing defendants’ efforts to conceal the information regarding stock sales proceeds. A number of the Enron individual defendants who traded on insider information would later plead guilty to, or be convicted of, violating the federal securities laws, resulting in disgorgement of their ill-gotten gains, fines, penalties and prison terms. 2. Preventing Evidence Spoliation at Andersen 51. Immediately after the Court’s ruling on Lead Counsel’s TRO application (Docket No. 111) on January 8, 2002, Andersen, Enron’s auditor, issued a press release admitting individuals at Andersen involved with the Enron engagement had “disposed of a significant but undetermined number of electronic and paper documents and correspondence relating to” the Company. Andersen - 28 -
said it was unable to determine whether any document destruction occurred after it received a subpoena from the SEC. 52. Just one day after Andersen admitted it had shredded Enron documents, Lead Counsel moved for an order allowing plaintiff to propound discovery directed at safeguarding all Enronrelated evidence in Andersen’s possession. Lead Counsel advised the Court of Andersen’s obligations under the PSLRA to preserve evidence. Lead Counsel sought permission to serve particularized discovery to protect the remaining Enron evidence in Andersen’s possession. Lead Counsel also sought to retrieve already-deleted electronic evidence using computerized restoration to mitigate the evidence loss. 53. Lead Counsel demanded the depositions of Andersen witnesses to question them about, among other things, Andersen employees who directed and executed the destruction of Enronrelated documents, Andersen’s efforts to preserve Enron documents, the facts surrounding how Enron-related documents were destroyed and the location of the document destruction, and all efforts to recover, reconstitute, or recreate the destroyed documents. Lead Counsel also asked the Court to order Andersen to make all Enron-related electronic evidence available to an independent forensic computer specialist. Lead Counsel specifically requested Andersen’s computer servers be made available for forensic examination to create back-up tapes and to allow recovery of deleted evidence. After Lead Counsel filed its motion to preserve Andersen evidence, other plaintiffs followed. 54. Before and after the filing, Lead Counsel gathered additional evidence of Andersen’s document destruction and the need for an order preserving Enron-related documents. Lead Plaintiff showed the Court that document destruction was not confined to Andersen’s Houston office and demonstrated Andersen’s head office in Chicago participated in regular conference calls to discuss destroying documents. Lead Counsel also pointed out how Andersen was concerned about - 29 -
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: the market in October 2001. The ana
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?