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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

143. A hearing was set on Lead Plaintiff’s motion to compel. Just days before the hearing, the parties reached agreement on the disputed discovery, with Citigroup agreeing to produce many of the requested categories of information. The parties met and conferred for several days concerning Citigroup’s agreement to produce additional archived electronic information, including allowing Lead Plaintiff to identify Citigroup employees from whom information would be produced. Additionally, Citigroup agreed to pay for the additional restoration and production efforts. 8. Subpoenas and Moving to Compel Production of JPMorgan Documents 144. On September 3, 2004, Lead Counsel filed a motion to compel JPMorgan to produce responsive committee meeting minutes, alleging the bank’s then-current production was inadequate and the bank failed to provide adequate assurance that all responsive meeting minutes had been produced from JPMorgan committees that met to discuss and review Enron-related transactions (Docket No. 2378). After Lead Counsel filed its motion to compel against JPMorgan, the parties met and conferred concerning the meeting minutes, resulting in the identification of relevant minutes within the document depository. Because Lead Counsel’s motion was satisfactorily addressed by counsel for the parties, on October 5, 2004 the motion to compel was voluntarily withdrawn (Docket No. 2438). 145. Lead Counsel subsequently filed another motion to compel against JPMorgan. On December 7, 2004, Lead Counsel demanded the production of internal telephone conference call transcripts prepared by JPMorgan that were withheld from plaintiffs (Docket No. 2758). Lead Counsel also moved to compel further responses to certain interrogatories, including questions about Mahonia and related JPMorgan-Enron transactions. The motion to compel was also a success, and on January 10, 2005 the Court ordered JPMorgan to produce the transcripts of the recorded telephone conversations, identify participants to the telephone conversations, and produce relevant documents concerning JPMorgan special purpose entities (Docket No. 2940). - 84 -
146. In addition to JPMorgan’s internal documents, Lead Counsel also successfully secured documents, evidence, and testimony from JPMorgan and nearly a dozen sureties involved in JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Liberty Mutual, No. 01-11523 (S.D.N.Y.). The JPMorgan Chase Bank litigation concerned the bank’s attempt to recover monies from its underwriters on certain failed Enron-related transactions; the sureties initially refused to pay the claims, arguing the underlying transactions were fraudulent. Just days after that case was settled, and starting on January 3, 2003, Lead Counsel served multiple rounds of document production requests and subpoenas to preserve and obtain the documents, depositions and sworn testimony from the underlying litigation. Lead Counsel moved swiftly to obtain the evidence because the documents were scheduled for disposal due to the litigation’s termination. 147. Lead Counsel’s efforts were successful. Critical documents, depositions and sworn testimony from JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Liberty Mutual were preserved and placed in the document depository. 9. CIBC Is Forced to Deem Facts as Admitted 148. On December 22, 2003, bank defendant CIBC entered agreements with the DOJ, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, Canada, and the SEC. According to the agreement, in the DOJ’s view, “CIBC and its personnel have violated federal criminal law” in the Enron fraud. As part of the agreement, “CIBC accepts responsibility for the conduct of its employees giving rise to any violation in connection with” Enron-related transactions involving CIBC, and CIBC further agreed to “not contradict the factual statements” set forth in a factual statement detailing CIBC’s fraud. Pursuant to the agreement, CIBC agreed to cease engaging in certain structured finance transactions with U.S. public companies, adopt internal governance and compliance measures, and pay a fine of $80 million, among other things. - 85 -
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 and 86: 133. Document requests and subpoena
Page 87: 139. In responding to the document
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?