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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Most of the meet-and-confer sessions were fruitful, resulting in additional information being disclosed to all parties, some of which was used during oral examination of defendant witnesses, especially concerning due diligence, fees earned on allegedly fraudulent transactions, and the participants to various transactions. 136. On several occasions, however, meet-and-confer sessions failed and Lead Counsel was forced to compel defendants to meaningfully respond to the interrogatories. For example, on November 3, 2004, Lead Counsel moved to compel Andersen to file complete responses to Lead Plaintiff’s interrogatory concerning Andersen witnesses with knowledge of fraud by Enron, and to compel production of Andersen separation/severance agreements (Docket No. 2548). The motion was successful, and on September 29, 2005, the Court directed defendants to answer the interrogatory and produce the severance agreements (Docket No. 3982). 137. On October 20, 2005, Lead Counsel filed a motion to compel against Deutsche Bank, seeking interrogatory information concerning the bank’s understanding of the “financial statement impact” of its transactions with Enron (Docket No. 4055). Shortly after the motion to compel was filed, Deutsche Bank agreed to answer the interrogatory. 7. Motion to Compel Citigroup Documents 138. On February 11, 2004 Lead Counsel filed a motion to compel documents and electronic evidence from defendant Citigroup (Docket No. 1980). The motion arose from Lead Counsel’s initial document production requests served on Citigroup (and other financial institution defendants). The document production requests demanded a significant amount of documentary and electronic information concerning the banks’ Enron-related transactions and business relationship with Enron, including structured finance transactions, underwriting, analysts, and investments in Enron securities and derivatives. - 82 -
139. In responding to the document production requests, Lead Counsel argued Citigroup had failed to comply with its discovery obligations because, among other reasons: • Citigroup refused to search for or produce documents created after December 2, 2001, even though documents created after Enron’s bankruptcy were highly relevant to the litigation; • Citigroup had identified a group of several hundred persons who had “significant involvement” in its relationship with Enron, but refused to search for or produce all documents from these persons purportedly because it was too burdensome; • Citigroup refused to restore and search e-mails stored on backup tapes or similar archival media purportedly because it was too burdensome; and • Citigroup refused to produce documents in the possession of Delta Energy Corporation, an SPE created, controlled and funded by Citigroup to accomplish $2.4 billion in bogus prepays with Enron. 140. Lead Plaintiff also initially sought the production of SEC transcripts and other communications, along with corporate jet manifests, Enron-related expense documents, and other information. 141. Though Lead Counsel’s document production requests sought a significant amount of information, Lead Plaintiff argued any burden suffered in responding to the discovery was directly proportional to Citigroup’s extensive involvement in the Enron fraud. 142. Citigroup opposed the request on March 2, 2004 (Docket No. 2011) (“Citi Opposition”). Citigroup said it “welcomes discovery in the litigation,” but Lead Counsel’s requests were “grossly” overbroad and would impose undue burden on Citigroup. Citi Opposition at 2, 5. Citigroup argued it should not have to produce additional archived emails, other than what it had already submitted to the Enron document depository, and further argued the costs of archived email retrieval should be borne by Lead Plaintiff. Citigroup called the request for post-bankruptcy documents an “open-ended demand” that was “patently unreasonable.” Id. at 19. Notably, Citigroup agreed to produce the Delta-related documents and said the issue was now “moot.” - 83 -
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 and 62: 106. On May 6, 2003, defendant Citi
Page 63 and 64: scheme, and certain specific allega
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: 133. Document requests and subpoena
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?