30.03.2015 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

complaint did not comply with applicable pleading requirements; and the complaint failed to plead<br />

loss causation. On December 30, 2003, <strong>Lead</strong> Counsel filed Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the Citigroup<br />

Defendants’ Separate Memorandum of Law in <strong>Support</strong> of Their Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 86<br />

in Case No. H-02-3401), which argued that Citigroup’s conduct in the Nighthawk transaction<br />

violated the securities laws, Citigroup made false and misleading statements, plaintiffs’ claims were<br />

pled with the requisite particularity, and the complaint adequately pled loss causation.<br />

(b)<br />

Deutsche Bank: Deutsche Bank argued for dismissal because the claims<br />

against it were time-barred. On December 30, 2003, <strong>Lead</strong> Counsel filed Plaintiffs’ Opposition to<br />

Deutsche Bank Entities’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 85 in Case No. H-02-3401), which argued<br />

that the defendant’s conduct in tax transactions violated the securities laws, and both reliance and<br />

loss causation were properly pled. On January 29, 2004, <strong>Lead</strong> Counsel also filed Plaintiffs’ Sur-<br />

Reply to Reply Memorandum of Law in <strong>Support</strong> of the Deutsche Bank Entities’ Motion to Dismiss<br />

(Docket No. 125 in Case No. H-02-3401), arguing that the effect of the tax transactions was<br />

unknown to investors and the transactions had no legitimate business purpose.<br />

(c)<br />

JPMorgan and Lehman Brothers: JPMorgan argued that the complaint failed<br />

to allege any act constituting primary liability; failed to plead scienter; and failed to adequately<br />

allege control person liability. Lehman Brothers argued for dismissal because it was not subject to<br />

control person liability. On December 30, 2003, <strong>Lead</strong> Counsel filed Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of<br />

Law in Opposition to the Motions to Dismiss Filed by the JPMorgan Defendants and Lehman<br />

Defendants (Docket No. 87 in Case No. H-02-3401), which argued that JPMorgan’s conduct in<br />

prepays and other transactions violated the securities laws, and that the complaint’s allegations were<br />

sufficiently pled.<br />

(d)<br />

<strong>Of</strong>ficer Defendants Buy, Frevert, Kean, Koenig, McMahon, Olson, Rice,<br />

Whalley, Hannon, Hirko and Causey; and Director Defendants Belfer, Blake, Chan, Duncan, Foy,<br />

- 66 -

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!