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

were public, and that the TSA claims adequately pled a primary violation. The Court ruled that the
claims were timely, the claims were pled with the requisite specificity, and that Lead Plaintiff had
standing. The Court also rejected the defendants’ contentions regarding the supposed private nature
of the offerings, ruling that it was a fact issue not properly decided on a motion to dismiss. Further,
the Court held that the FACC stated a claim for control person liability and under the TSA. The
Court thus denied the motion to dismiss. See 3/31/04 Order re JPMorgan Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss (Docket No. 2052) at 15.
(b)
Citigroup, Inc. and related entities (collectively, “Citigroup”) challenged new
claims under §§10, 12, 15 and 20(a) against them concerning the Foreign Debt Securities. The
defendants argued that the §§10 and 12 claims should be dismissed because Lead Plaintiff lacked
standing, the offerings were private not public, and certain claims were time-barred. Lead Plaintiff’s
opposition argued that the claims were timely asserted, Lead Plaintiff had standing, and the offerings
were private. The Court ruled that Lead Plaintiff had standing to prosecute the claims, and that the
claims were not time-barred. The Court also rejected the defendants’ contentions regarding the
supposed private nature of the offerings, ruling that it was a fact issue not properly decided on a
motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Court denied the motion to dismiss. See 3/31/04 Order re
Citigroup Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 2050) at 6.
(c)
CSFB and related entities (Docket No. 1502) argued for dismissal because the
claims against it were time barred, the new §10 claims against it were not pled with the requisite
particularity, and the FACC failed to contain adequate allegations concerning certain of the Credit
Suisse entities. Credit Suisse also argued that, concerning the §12(a)(2) claims, Lead Plaintiff lacked
standing for failure to purchase the subject securities, and the offerings were not public, and with
regard to the §20(a) and §15 claims, that there was no predicate violation, and sufficient allegations
of control were absent. Lead Plaintiff’s opposition argued that its claims were not time-barred, were
- 60 -