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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

individuals at Enron had executed a massive shredding operation and, even as late as February 2002, Enron continued to shred documents. 62. On February 8, 2002 Lead Counsel filed a motion for particularized discovery from Enron executives (Docket Nos. 259, 260). Lead Counsel argued the PSLRA discovery stay should be lifted to permit the examination of Enron executives Lay, Jeff McMahon, Robert Butts, Richard Buy (“Buy”), Causey, Mark Lindsey, Rodney Faldyn, and James Derrick (“Derrick”). Lead Counsel alleged that Enron General Counsel Derrick had ordered Enron employees in writing several times to refrain from destroying company documents. Yet despite Derrick’s warnings, and notwithstanding a formal SEC investigation announced October 31, 2001, document shredding at Enron began shortly after the SEC announced its investigation. The document shredding accelerated during Thanksgiving 2001, and continued into the first quarter of 2002. News reports confirmed shredding companies were seen at Enron corporate headquarters. 63. Lead Counsel’s February 8, 2002 motion for expedited discovery argued Enron’s document shredding violated the PSLRA’s document preservation requirements, necessitating a partial lifting of the discovery stay. Lead Counsel argued it was entitled to particularized discovery to preserve evidence and to prevent undue prejudice to the Class, and in particular argued the depositions of Enron executives were necessary to secure testimony concerning the evidence spoliation. 64. Defendants filed their oppositions on March 11, 2002, arguing the PSLRA prohibited the requested discovery and arguing Enron’s bankruptcy filing also automatically stayed discovery (Docket Nos. 354, 355, 357). The defendants further argued Lead Plaintiff’s motion would do “nothing” to preserve evidence, since the FBI and other agencies had already taken measures to investigate and stop any alleged document destruction or evidence spoliation. - 32 -
65. After the motion was filed, The Regents was appointed Lead Plaintiff (Docket No. 294). In light of the PSLRA discovery stay, Lead Plaintiff filed its Proposed Pretrial Scheduling Order on February 21, 2002, which included dates for discovery to commence (Docket No. 315). On February 25, 2002, the Court held a scheduling conference attended by all parties, at which time the Court held it would set forth a scheduling order governing the consolidated actions. 5. Enjoining Andersen Proceeds 66. On March 14, 2002, the DOJ charged Andersen with obstruction of justice, resulting from Andersen’s destruction of Enron-related evidence. Following the revelations about Andersen’s involvement with Enron and its document destruction, Andersen’s business declined rapidly in the first three quarters of 2002. 67. Before Andersen was convicted of obstructing justice, Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel, on April 5, 2002, sought to preserve Andersen’s proceeds to satisfy a future judgment (Docket No. 440). Lead Plaintiff had moved for an order enjoining the dissolution or sale of Andersen’s businesses. Andersen responded on April 22, 2002, by arguing it was “downsizing” to preserve its resources and continue as a going concern (Docket No. 533). In a May 16, 2002 ruling the Court denied the requested relief (Docket No. 743). The Court held injunctive relief was unwarranted because Lead Plaintiff had not sufficiently established irreparable injury and “[t]he evidence presented . . . indicates that Andersen is engaged in a legitimate effort to mitigate the losses suffered by its client exodus.” 5/16/02 Memorandum and Order at 7. 68. One month later, on June 15, 2002, Andersen was convicted of obstructing justice in the Enron matter by interfering with the SEC’s Enron investigation. Shortly thereafter, Lead Plaintiff learned Andersen intended to cease practicing by August 31, 2002. As part of its business wind down, Andersen intended to distribute capital to its qualified partners. - 33 -
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: depositions because discovery was p
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?