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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 -
scheme, and certain specific allegations in the FACC concerning Olson, McMahon and Whalley. The Court also noted the filing of an indictment against Causey, and Lead Plaintiff’s supplemental allegations against Buy. See 3/15/04 MTD Order at 22-25. 108. On June 18, 2003, defendants (and their related entities) JPMorgan (Docket No. 1498), Citigroup (Docket No. 1497), CSFB (Docket No. 1502), CIBC (Docket Nos. 1505 and 1682), BofA (Docket No. 1514), Merrill Lynch (Docket No. 1499), Barclays (Docket No. 1512) and Lehman Brothers (Docket No. 1526) also filed motions to dismiss the FACC. In response, Lead Counsel filed a 115-page consolidated opposition on July 17, 2003 (Docket No. 1574); a Notice of Recent Authority concerning Levitt v. Bear Stearns & Co., No. 02-7860, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 16539 (2d Cir. Aug. 13, 2003) on August 13, 2003 (Docket No. 1617); Lead Plaintiff’s Supplement to Opposition to Motions to Dismiss Filed by JPMorgan, Citigroup and Merrill Lynch, which submitted documents from government-initiated proceedings against those defendants, on September 23, 2003 (Docket No. 1685); Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Filed by Defendant CIBC World Markets PLC on October 6, 2003 (Docket No. 1732); and Plaintiff’s Response to Supplemental Submission in Further Support of the Motion to Dismiss of Defendants Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and Lehman Brothers Inc. (Docket No. 1918), which concerned these defendants’ reliance on the Final Report of Neal Batson, Court-Appointed Examiner, on December 29, 2003. The parties contended, and the Court ruled, as follows: (a) JPMorgan Chase & Co. and related entities argued that claims against certain of them were time-barred, Lead Plaintiff had failed to plead certain claims with the requisite specificity, Lead Plaintiff lacked standing for certain claims, the subject offerings were private, not public, the FACC failed to adequately allege control person liability, and that the TSA claims failed for lack of a primary violation. Lead Plaintiff’s opposition argued that its claims were timely asserted and pled with the requisite specificity, Lead Plaintiff had standing, the subject offerings - 59 -
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 and 60: mandamus review, and that the Court
Page 61: 106. On May 6, 2003, defendant Citi
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?