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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Court granted the motion. See 12/17/02 Order re The Regents’ Motion to Modify Pretrial Scheduling (Docket No. 1190) at 2. 98. On January 7, 2003, Merrill Lynch filed the Memorandum of Law of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. in Support of its Motion for Reconsideration or Certification Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1292(b) (Docket No. 1213), which argued for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying Merrill Lynch’s motion to dismiss, on the ground that that Court considered alleged facts not contained in Lead Plaintiff’s Complaint, and eliminated the distinction between primary liability and aiding and abetting. In the alternative, the motion sought certification of the order for appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1292(b). On January 13, 2003, CIBC, Barclays, Citigroup, CSFB and JPMorgan, and on January 16, 2003, Vinson & Elkins, also filed motions seeking certification for appeal of the Court’s order denying their motions to dismiss (Docket Nos. 1220, 1227). The Court denied these motions. See 1/23/03 Order re §1292(b) Certification for Immediate Appeal of 12/20/02 Order (“1/23/03 §1292(b) Order”) (Docket No. 1238) at 7. 99. On January 7, 2003, defendants CSFB and JPMorgan filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking review of the Court’s order refusing to certify for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1292(b) its December 20, 2002 Order denying the motions to dismiss filed by these defendants. The Petition argued for mandamus because the order involved a controlling issue of law; as to which there was substantial ground for difference of opinion; and an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. On December 13, 2003, Barclays, and on February 14, 2003, Vinson & Elkins, also filed Petitions making essentially the same arguments. On February 20, 2003, Lead Plaintiff received letters from the Fifth Circuit requesting a response to the petitions. On March 6, 2003, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated opposition to the petitions, which argued that the Court’s decision did not qualify for - 54 -
mandamus review, and that the Court did not clearly err in declining to certify the subject order for interlocutory appeal. By Order dated March 11, 2003, the Fifth Circuit denied the petition. 100. In response to the Court’s dismissal of certain claims, on January 14, 2003, Lead Plaintiff sent a letter to the Court inquiring about amending or supplementing the complaint to cure any pleading deficiencies. In response, on January 23, 2003, the Court issued an order instructing Lead Plaintiff to defer any amendment or supplementation until all of the motions to dismiss had been ruled upon. See 1/23/03 §1292(b) Order. 101. On January 27, 2003, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion to file a first supplemental complaint concerning Merrill Lynch (Docket No. 1240). The Court ruled the motion moot, because it indicated in subsequent orders that Lead Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint as a single instrument. See 5/2/03 Order re Lead Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Consolidated Complaint (Docket No. 1364) at 1-2. 102. On March 5, 2003, certain defendants filed the Joint Motion of Certain Defendants to Strike The Washington State Board Class Action Complaint (Docket No. 1256), arguing that it was unauthorized, untimely, and inconsistent with the Court’s orders. On March 24, 2003, Lead Plaintiff filed an opposition (Docket No. 1297) (and on April 16, 2003 a sur-reply (Docket Nos. 1336 and 1337)), arguing that the complaint was timely and not in conflict with the Court’s orders. The Court ruled that the motion was moot, in light of the filing of an agreed motion, which the Court granted, to allow plaintiffs to file an amended complaint, and defendants to file motions to dismiss. See 9/13/03 Order re Joint Motion to Strike (Docket No. 1660) at 2-3. 103. On April 4, 2003, Officer Defendants Olson, Whalley, Frevert, Koenig and Kean filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the Court’s 3/24/03 Memorandum and Order denying their motion to dismiss (Docket No. 1318). In the motion, these defendants urged reconsideration on the bases that the Court committed an error in analyzing Lead Plaintiff’s allegations about Enron’s - 55 -
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 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: 94. On September 26, 2002, Lead Pla
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 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?