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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

69. Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel moved quickly to preserve Andersen’s assets for future recovery by Enron’s investors. On August 12, 2002, Lead Counsel filed an Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order to enjoin the distribution of Andersen’s assets to its partners (Docket No. 997). The emergency motion argued the distribution would frustrate any judgment on the merits against Andersen, and render satisfaction of any future judgment virtually impossible. In the August 12, 2002 Emergency Motion for a TRO, Lead Counsel argued Andersen could no longer credibly claim it was “downsizing” its operations to “preserve” resources. Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel argued it was likely to succeed in proving its securities fraud claims against Andersen, and that Andersen was unlikely to remain solvent to pay any future judgment, not only because of other stock frauds involving Andersen clients (including WorldCom, Qwest and Global Crossing), but also because Andersen had admitted its insurance carrier was insolvent. 70. Andersen opposed the motion on August 13, 2002, arguing Andersen had no plans to dissolve, did not intend on returning capital to its partners, and the Court had previously denied a similar attempt to set aside Andersen assets (Docket No. 998). 71. Lead Plaintiff’s motion was resolved by agreement among the parties. On August 15, 2002 the Court entered an order outlining the agreement (Docket No. 1006). In exchange for Lead Plaintiff agreeing to withdraw the TRO application, Andersen agreed to provide Lead Plaintiff with 30 days notice prior to any plan to dissolve or return capital to Andersen’s partners, and Andersen agreed it would not distribute capital to its partners before August 30, 2002. 6. Lead Counsel Defeats Early Abusive “Class Certification” Discovery 72. On August 7, 2002, the Court ordered discovery stayed under the PSLRA, pending rulings on defendants’ myriad motions to dismiss the allegations (Docket No. 983). But under the guise of “class certification” discovery, defendants propounded duplicative discovery against plaintiffs, seeking to depose at least seven individuals from The Regents, 20 other depositions from - 34 -
institutional plaintiffs, their representatives, as well as individual investors’ depositions, and any experts plaintiffs intended to rely on for class certification purposes. Notably, the “class certification” depositions were noticed for the week of August 12, 2002 through August 16, 2002, resulting in as many as eight plaintiffs being deposed, simultaneously, in a single eight-hour period at various Houston law firms. When totaled, defendants had noticed a minimum of 29 “class certification” depositions over five business days in Houston at various law firms representing defendants. 73. Lead Counsel immediately moved for a protective order to curtail the abuse. The motion for protective order was filed on August 13, 2002 (Docket No. 1000). In the protective order motion Lead Plaintiff said it responded to the noticed depositions by offering a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent from The Regents who would be most knowledgeable about the decision to invest in Enron securities. Lead Plaintiff had conferred with other plaintiffs, and further agreed to produce persons most knowledgeable on behalf of each institutional plaintiff, and even agreed to produce individual named plaintiffs, committing to at least 16 depositions. Defendants, however, rejected the proffer. 74. In its motion for protective order Lead Plaintiff argued its proffer of the person most knowledgeable was preferred to the “shotgun” method of noticing myriad individuals for deposition, resulting in satellite litigation that would be duplicative, wasteful and costly. Lead Counsel argued the Federal Rules command that litigants depose persons most knowledgeable instead of the duplicative, costly depositions propounded by the defendants, and that the depositions’ true purpose was harassment. 75. The protective order also sought an order preventing defendants from propounding onerous document production requests that sought personal and financial information unrelated to Enron. For example, defendants had propounded document requests asking individual plaintiffs to produce “all documents” concerning their financial net worth, assets, debts, financial status – even - 35 -
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: 65. After the motion was filed, The
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?