Enron Corp. - University of California | Office of The President

2 Certain defendants named herein, including Mendelsohn, Meyer, Ferraz Pereira, Urquhart,
Wakeham, Walker, Winokur, Savage and Alliance Capital Management are not sued for fraud, but
rather, only under non-fraud provisions of the 1933 and 1934 Acts. No allegations of fraud are made
against or directed at these defendants.
- 4 -
Michael C. Odom
Richard R. Petersen
John E. Stewart
William E. Swanson
Michael D. Jones
(c) Law firm that represented Enron and its related entities:
Vinson & Elkins
(d) Enron's banks:
JP Morgan
CitiGroup
CS First Boston
Canadian Imperial Bank of
Commerce
Merrill Lynch
Bank of America
Barclays
Deutsche Bank
Lehman Brothers
2. Each of the defendants sued for fraud engaged or participated in the implementation
of manipulative devices to inflate Enron's reported profits and financial condition, made or
participated in the making of false and misleading statements and participated in a scheme to defraud
or a course of business that operated as a fraud or a deceit on purchasers of Enron's publicly traded
securities between 10/19/98 and 11/27/01. 2 Enron extolled the current success and future prospects
and earning power of its Wholesale Energy trading business ("WEOS"), its retail Energy Services
business ("EES") and its Broadband Content Delivery and Access Trading, i.e., intermediation,
business ("EBS"). Both prior to and during the Class Period, Enron reported very strong profits and
profit growth and a strong balance sheet which enabled it to maintain an investment grade credit
rating. As a result of defendants' wrongful conduct and scheme, Enron's common stock was
artificially inflated to as high as $90-3/4 (giving Enron a market capitalization of over $70 billion
in 8/00), while Enron's preferred and debt securities also traded at artificially inflated prices.