Footnote 8

$19 million in connection with the Southampton transaction, with Fastow and Kopper splitting$9 million of that.573. In summary, CSFB knew that Fastow engaged in self-dealing in connection withLJM1 and that Fastow and Kopper engaged in self-dealing in the Southampton transaction. CSFBknew that Fastow’s and Kopper’s self-dealing constituted a breach of their fiduciary duties to Enron.Through its participation in the CSFB Bridge Loan, the SAILs transaction, and the Southamptontransaction, CSFB knowingly provided substantial assistance to these Insiders in effecting thesebreaches.574. Eventually, the LJM1 partnership liquidated. Over its two years of existence, CSFB’stotal take was $38 million – approximately $30.5 million over and above its original $7.5 millioninvestment in LJM1.(d)LJM2575. In late-August 1999, Fastow contacted both CSFB and DLJ about investing in LJM2.Fastow told CSFB and DLJ that their early commitments to LJM2 would give LJM2 the visibilityit needed in order to attract other financial institutions. In December 1999, Fastow invited CSFB toinvest $12 million of its LJM1 distribution in LJM2. In deciding whether to invest, both CSFB andDLJ recognized that doing so was important to preserve their relationship with Fastow. Ultimately,CSFB committed $10 million and DLJ committed $5 million. In 2000, CSFB also approved a$30 million credit facility for LJM2.576. Directly and as general partner of LJM2, Fastow received approximately $9.3 millionin distributions and $9.9 million in management fees. Exam. II, App. L. at 20. Fastow also received$15.5 million in cash and a house valued at $850,000 from Kopper in connection with Fastow’s saleof his LJM1 and LJM2 interests to Kopper. Id. Of course, CSFB knew all of this because it wasa limited partner in both LJM vehicles.604041v1/007457-192-