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

dismiss. See 3/15/04 Order re Motions to Dismiss Hirko’s, Harrison’s and Certain Officer
Defendants (“3/15/04 MTD Order”) (Docket No. 2020) at 2-11.
(b)
Harrison challenged the specificity of the allegations against him, and argued
that he did not receive bonuses, did not manage Enron’s day-to-day operations, left Enron
Broadband Services before the alleged fraud there occurred, his sales of Enron stock were for
innocuous reasons, the FACC failed to plead scienter against him, and that Lead Plaintiff had failed
to fulfill the contemporaneity requirement concerning his sales of Enron stock. On July 17, 2003,
Lead Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion (Docket No. 1570), which argued against dismissal
because the Complaint’s allegations concerning Harrison were sufficient to state claims against him.
The Court denied Harrison’s motion to dismiss, because Harrison served on Enron’s Board for years
and during key periods of the alleged repetitive, fraudulent activity, and in light of the alleged
revamping of Portland General Electric (of which Harrison was the CEO) for the Enron Broadband
fraud. Also, the Court found that the FACC presented a strong inference of scienter against
Harrison, because of its allegations of Harrison’s exposure to the transactions of the alleged scheme.
The Court further noted that Harrison had signed several of Enron’s SEC filings. See 3/15/04 MTD
Order at 11-22.
(c)
The Officer Defendants argued that the FACC had failed to feature new
allegations previously relied upon by the Court in denying a previous motion to dismiss; and had
failed to satisfy the pleading requirements of the PSLRA. On July 17, 2003, Lead Plaintiff filed an
opposition (Docket No. 1571), arguing that Lead Plaintiff had supplemented its complaint in
accordance with the orders of the Court; the Court had already rejected some of the defendants’
arguments; and Lead Plaintiffs’ new allegations strengthened its pleading of scienter. The Court
denied the motion filed by the Officer Defendants, in light of the Court’s prior rulings, and the
FACC’s allegations that each was a top executive of Enron and oversaw critical deals in the alleged
- 58 -