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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

their tax returns dating back to 1997, a clearly overbroad request. Similarly, defendants demanded institutional plaintiffs produce “all documents” concerning “all trading activity” for “all” positions in securities and investments dating back to 1997, a request so burdensome no financial institution could comply. Lead Plaintiff deemed the requests abusive, unrelated to class certification, and requested an order prohibiting this discovery. 76. Defendants opposed the motion for protective order on August 30, 2002, arguing the protective order filing was premature, Lead Plaintiff was uncooperative, and the number of depositions sought by defendants “is a direct function of the number of class representatives named.” Opposition to Lead Plaintiff The Regents’ Motion for Protective Order by Defendants Bank of America Corporation, Credit Suisse First Boston Corp., Citigroup, Inc., Deutsche Bank AG., Barclays Plc, Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase and Company, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and Lehman Brothers Holding Inc. (Docket No. 1021) at 2. Defendants further argued the individuals noticed for deposition possessed “relevant and discoverable information.” 77. On March 27, 2003, the Court granted Lead Plaintiff’s motion for protective order, holding the deposition of The Regents’ Rule 30(b)(6) designee was sufficient, whereas the other myriad depositions “are not relevant to the class certification issues.” 3/27/03 Order re Lead Plaintiff’s Protective Order at 2. Lead Counsel defended the deposition of The Regents’ persons most knowledgeable, and further defended a number of class representative depositions. V. DRAFTING THE CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 78. To draft the Consolidated Complaint, Coughlin Stoia attorneys closely re-reviewed Enron’s SEC filings, news articles and analyst statements regarding Enron for the time period starting in 1998 and continuing through the bankruptcy filing and thereafter for information that differed from what was gathered to plead claims against the officers and directors, Andersen, Enron’s investment banks and its law firms. We combined this review with our investigative results - 36 -
drawing on the expertise of our in-house forensic accountants for the accounting allegations and consulting with former investment bankers for the allegations against the banks. We combined all of these resources to piece together the puzzle of Enron’s accounting, its false financials, and its ultimate collapse. 79. At the scheduling conference in late February 2002, the Court set a very tight schedule for filing the Consolidated Complaint and briefing motions to dismiss. Coughlin Stoia continued to gather information for the complaint, took steps to preserve evidence which we could not obtain through formal discovery, served subpoenas for preservation of documents on banks which had done business with Enron and moved to lift the stay in bankruptcy in an effort to obtain documents from Enron. 80. Preparing the Consolidated Complaint for filing within 30 days after the scheduling conference was an enormous undertaking. In March 2002 we had an “all-hands” meeting in California to strategize and coordinate our efforts. University Counsel Chris Patti, attorneys from our New York and San Diego offices, investigators, forensic accountants and other consultants gathered and spent a day and a half reviewing evidence, and sharing ideas on which defendants should be named and identifying the claims that would be pled against them. Topics at the all-hands meeting included evidence about broadband; related-party partnerships and financial structures, including Raptors, JEDI/Chewco, LJM, and Braveheart; legal standards to establish auditor and banker liability; the role of lawyers, bankers, and auditors in Enron’s fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions; and the Company’s improper accounting for its sham transactions. Throughout March 2002, the team continued drafting the Consolidated Complaint and we went through countless drafts. Our efforts culminated in the 500+-page Consolidated Complaint which named Enron officers and directors, its auditor Andersen, and for the first time, nine of the largest financial - 37 -
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: institutional plaintiffs, their rep
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?