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

Merrill Lynch and Deutsche Bank Entities (Docket No. 2036) at 5-13. The Court found loss
causation adequately pled because the FACC alleged that the fraud inflated the price of Enron
securities, and the plaintiffs’ loss was a direct and foreseeable result of conduct including Merrill
Lynch’s. See id. at 13-17.
(g)
Barclays Bank and related entities (collectively, “Barclays”) argued that the
claims against them were time-barred, the claims under §12 failed for lack of standing, and also
because they concerned a private offering. Lead Plaintiff’s opposition argued that its claims were
not time-barred, Lead Plaintiff had standing, and the offerings were public. The Court ruled that
Lead Plaintiff’s claims were not time-barred, Lead Plaintiff had standing to sue, and that Lead
Plaintiff had stated a claim under §15. 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 3/30/04 Order re Barclays Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No.
2042) at 1-6.
(h)
Lehman Brothers argued for dismissal of claims under §§11 and 12(a)(2)
because they were time-barred; dismissal of the claim under §12(a)(2) because the plaintiffs lacked
standing as none of them purchased the subject securities and because the offerings were private, not
public; dismissal of the claim under §15 due to the absence of a predicate violation, and dismissal of
the claim under the TSA because of a lack of privity. Lead Plaintiff’s opposition argued that its
claims were not time-barred, plaintiffs had standing, the offerings were public, and predicate
violations were adequately alleged, as were the claims under the TSA. The Court ruled that the
claims were timely, Lead Plaintiff had standing to sue, the issue of whether the offerings were public
or private could not be resolved at the current stage of the litigation, and liability under §15 and the
TSA had been adequately pled. See 3/30/04 Order re Lehman Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
(Docket No. 2043) at 8.
- 63 -