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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

previously noticed.” Order on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (Westboro #14) and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Deutsche Bank to Refrain from Instructing Witnesses During Questions (Docket No. 364 in Case No. H-02-1446) at 4. The Court also ordered Deutsche Bank to stop improperly coaching witnesses during oral examination. 14. Lead Counsel Challenges the “Advice of Counsel” Defense 163. On May 20, 2005, Lead Counsel moved for an expedited order forcing defendants to either (a) within five days, explicitly and unambiguously notify Lead Plaintiff in writing they waived the advice of counsel defense, or (b) within ten days, produce all attorney-client communications concerning Enron-related transactions for which they sought advice of counsel, answer Lead Plaintiff’s interrogatories requesting the basis for the defense, and allow deposition questioning concerning the legal advice at all future depositions (Docket No. 3502). Lead Counsel argued the financial institutions avoided disclosing documents purportedly attorney-client privileged, yet at the same time asserted an advice of counsel defense. Lead Counsel argued the defendants could not have it both ways: assertion of advice of counsel defense operated as a subject-matter waiver of the attorney-client privilege as to all communications with counsel. 164. The bank defendants filed a response on May 24, 2005, arguing expedited consideration was unnecessary, a full briefing schedule was preferred because the issue was complex, and arguing the court in WorldCom did not compel defendants to make an election or waiver until just six weeks before trial (Docket No. 3506). 165. Lead Counsel’s motion was successful. On June 20, 2005, the Court signed a stipulation among the parties that required defendants to inform Lead Plaintiff about any aspect of a transaction, or complaint allegation, for which the financial institution intends to assert the defense of reliance on its own counsel (Docket No. 3619). If asserting the reliance on counsel defense, the financial institutions also agreed to produce all communications previously withheld on the basis of - 90 -
privilege. And the defendants agreed to supplement their interrogatory discovery responses concerning the facts about the legal advice received, and agreed to permit oral examination of witnesses concerning legal advice if the financial institution continued to rely on advice of its own counsel as a defense. 15. Lead Plaintiff Compels Production of Trading Data by the Financial Institutions 166. Lead Counsel sought data about Enron’s publicly traded debt securities and preferred stock. The trading data evidence showed Enron’s trading price reacted to changes in the likelihood of Enron defaulting on its obligations. The trading data, including information about transaction type and volume, was used by Lead Plaintiff’s and Lead Counsel’s experts to analyze damages and to determine how Enron and Enron-related securities traded in the marketplace. 167. Lead Counsel sought and obtained Enron trading data from numerous defendants in the litigation, including Merrill Lynch, CSFB and Barclays; defendant banks who settled with Lead Plaintiff, including Citigroup, CIBC and JPMorgan; and numerous nonparty investment banks. Goldman Sachs, from whom Lead Counsel sought Enron trading data, objected to producing information on grounds the PSLRA stayed discovery against it. On November 23, 2005, Lead Counsel moved to compel production (Docket No. 44 in Case No. H-04-0088). Lead Counsel demonstrated to the Court the trading data discovery was both relevant and tailored. The discovery against Goldman Sachs was not stayed. Lead Counsel’s motion to compel was successful, since Goldman Sachs agreed to produce the trading data and the parties were able to resolve their remaining discovery disputes. The motion was withdrawn on December 9, 2005 and relevant information was produced to plaintiffs (Docket No. 48 in Case No. H-04-0088). 168. Additionally, Lead Counsel also filed a motion to compel against Goldman Sachs on September 27, 2006, demanding Goldman Sachs answer interrogatory questions concerning persons - 91 -
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 and 88: 139. In responding to the document
Page 89 and 90: 146. In addition to JPMorgan’s in
Page 91 and 92: 10. Requests for Admission 152. In
Page 93: Protocol Order provided for the ord
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?