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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Executive Committee, embellished Lead Plaintiff’s allegations, reversed its prior rulings concerning pleading under the PSLRA, and obfuscated matters favorable to the moving defendants. On April 16, 2003, Lead Plaintiff filed an opposition (Docket No. 1338), arguing that Lead Plaintiff’s allegations in its complaint supported the Court’s order denying the motion to dismiss. The Court denied the motion. See 4/21/03 Order re Certain Officer Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 1345) at 8. 104. On April 8, 2003, Fastow filed a motion seeking to postpone his filing of an answer to the complaint pending conclusion of the criminal proceedings against him (Docket No. 1322). On April 25, 2003, Lead Plaintiff filed a response (Docket No. 1350), arguing that Fastow was required to formally invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege and concurrently answer those allegations where the privilege did not apply. The Court granted Fastow’s motion. See 4/28/03 Order re Fastow Motion to Postpone Answer (Docket No. 1353) at 3. 105. On April 29, 2003 and April 30, 2003, defendants CIBC and BofA filed motions for summary judgment (Docket Nos. 1362, 1357), contending they were not proper parties to the litigation, but rather that certain of their subsidiaries were. The defendants argued for judgment as a matter of law because their parent entities did not engage in the conduct alleged, and the conduct of their subsidiaries could not be imputed to it. On May 19, 2003 and May 20, 2003, Lead Plaintiff filed oppositions to the motions (Docket Nos. 1396, 1405), which raised several legal theories under which the moving defendants could be held liable. Lead Plaintiff also highlighted admissions by defendants and evidence which raised issues of fact germane to the contentions of the movants, and argued that Lead Plaintiff’s inability to conduct discovery further warranted denial of the motions. The Court denied the motions, citing the arguments advanced by Lead Plaintiff. See 5/21/03 Order re CIBC and BofA Summary Judgment Motions (Docket No. 1392) at 3. - 56 -
106. On May 6, 2003, defendant Citigroup filed a motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 1379), arguing that the alleged wrongful conduct was not performed by it, but to the extent it was performed by any Citigroup-related entities, they were its subsidiaries. The defendant also sought dismissal of the control person liability claim against it. On June 11, 2003, Lead Plaintiff filed an opposition (Docket No. 1479), in which it argued that there existed issues of material fact precluding summary judgment, and highlighting its inability to conduct discovery on the issues. The Court denied the motions, citing the arguments advanced by Lead Plaintiffs. See 6/19/03 Order re Citigroup Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 1531) at 4. 3. Additional Motions to Dismiss in Response to Lead Plaintiff’s First Amended Consolidated Complaint 107. In response to Lead Plaintiff’s First Amended Consolidated Complaint (Docket No. 1388) (“FACC”) filed on May 14, 2003, certain individual defendants filed motions to dismiss: Joseph. M. Hirko (Docket No. 1448); Ken Harrison (Docket No. 1494); and Officer Defendants Steven J. Kean, Lawrence Greg Whalley, Mark A. Frevert; Mark E. Koenig, Cindy K. Olson, Richard B. Buy, Richard A. Causey and Jeffrey McMahon (Docket No. 1509). The parties contended, and the Court ruled, as follows: (a) Hirko argued that Lead Plaintiff should not be able to rely on allegations in an SEC case against him to support its claims; Lead Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the pleading requirements of the PSLRA, and that the claims against him have previously been dismissed with prejudice. On June 18, 2003, Lead Plaintiff filed an opposition (Docket No. 1529), which argued that the claims against Hirko had not been dismissed with prejudice, and that the complaint’s allegations stated a claim against Hirko. The Court ruled that Lead Plaintiff was permitted to replead claims against Hirko, that the Court could take judicial notice of the SEC suit against Hirko in ruling on the sufficiency of Lead Plaintiff’s claims. For these reasons, the Court denied Hirko’s motion to - 57 -
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 and 58: 94. On September 26, 2002, Lead Pla
Page 59: mandamus review, and that the Court
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?