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

pled with the requisite particularity, Lead Plaintiff had standing, the offerings were public, and
predicate violations were adequately alleged. The Court ruled that certain of the §12(a)(2) and §15
claims were time-barred, but others could proceed. See 3/31/04 Order re CSFB Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss (Docket No. 2044) at 7. The Court also ruled that Lead Plaintiff had pled its §10 claim
with the requisite particularity, and had stated a claim for relief under §20(a). The Court 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. See id. at 15.
(d)
CIBC World Markets Corp., Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and CIBC
World Markets plc (collectively, “CIBC”) (Docket Nos. 1505, 1682) contended that the claims
against them were time-barred, did not satisfy the pleading requirements of the PSLRA (including
that concerning the pleading of scienter) and Rule 9(b), Lead Plaintiff lacked standing, and the
subject offerings were private, not public. The defendants also challenged Lead Plaintiff’s control
person claims. Lead Plaintiff’s opposition argued that its claims were timely asserted and pled with
the requisite particularity, Lead Plaintiff had standing, the offerings were public, and control person
liability was adequately pled. The Court ruled that Lead Plaintiff’s claims concerning one offering
were time-barred, but that the others were not. It also ruled that Lead Plaintiff’s claims were pled
with the requisite specificity, that Lead Plaintiff had standing to sue, and 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. The Court further found that the FACC adequately alleged
claims for control person liability. Thus, the Court denied the motion to dismiss. See 3/31/04 Order
re CIBC Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 2048) at 15.
(e)
Bank of America and related entities (collectively, “BofA”) moved for
dismissal on the grounds that certain claims against it were time-barred, Lead Plaintiff lacked
standing to bring certain claims, the offerings were inactionable as private, not public, and Lead
- 61 -