On December 2, 2009, upon consideration of the motion by The Regents of the University of California ("The Regents"), the Court extended the deadline for filing claims to December 1, 2009. The Court also ordered that claims submitted after December 1, 2009 shall be rejected absent a claimant's affirmative showing to the Court of excusable neglect for filing after the deadline. In other words, all valid claims which generate recognized losses and which were submitted by December 1, 2009, will be included in the distribution of settlement funds; if a claim is submitted after December 1, 2009, then the claimant must explain the reason the claim was filed late and the Court will decide whether or not such claim will be included for distributions.

In addition on December 2, 2009, upon consideration of the Agreed Motion to Dismiss, the Court dismissed with prejudice all claims asserted by The Regents against Barclays, Credit Suisse First Boston, Merrill Lynch, Royal Bank of Canada, Royal Bank of Scotland, Toronto Dominion, Jeffrey K. Skilling, Richard A. Causey, and Mark E. Koenig.

In August 2009, in light of the Fifth Circuit's ruling on the appeal from class certification, the Supreme Court's opinion in Stoneridge Inv. Partners, LLC v. Scientific Atlanta, Inc., the rulings granting summary judgment motions filed by Barclays, CSFB and Merrill, and the financial condition of the individual defendants, The Regents of the University of California determined it is no longer in the best interests of the proposed class of investors to further pursue the claims asserted against the non-settling banks and the individual defendants, Jeff Skilling, Richard Causey and Mark Koenig. On September 1, 2009, the Court entered an order setting a hearing on November 17, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. (later moved to December 2, 2009) to address the motion to dismiss that The Regents and the remaining defendants agreed upon. Notice of the hearing was mailed to investors. The dismissal of the class claims against non-settling defendants has no impact on the billions of dollars already obtained and being returned to Enron investors in the largest recovery ever in a class action.

On March 5, 2009, the Court granted summary judgment in the case against remaining defendants. The decision has no impact on the recoveries in excess of $7 billion already recovered and being distributed to members of the class.

On September 8, 2008, the Court approved the proposed plan of allocation to distribute recovered funds, saying "Having reviewed all submissions and heard oral arguments at the Fairness Hearing, made findings of fact, and addressed all pending objections, this Court finds that the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair, adequate and reasonable. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Lead Plaintiff’s motion for final approval of the proposed Plan of allocation of the settlement proceeds (instrument #5793) is GRANTED."

The Court also approved the request for attorneys' fees of 9.52% of the settlement funds, saying "Court finds that the blended 9.52% fee agreed to by Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel at the beginning of the Newby litigation (1) is fair and reasonable, (2) is substantially lower than fees awarded in other comparable class actions at the time the agreement was made, and (3) should be enforced...." The Court also approved certain plaintiffs’ requests for reimbursement of expenses.

The initial distribution of settlement monies commenced in December 2008.

On March 19, 2007, the Fifth Circuit vacated Judge Harmon’s order certifying the class. The Fifth Circuit held, in pertinent part, that because the Bank Defendants made no false statements, the investors could not use the fraud-on-the-market doctrine to establish reliance, and consequently, the class could not be certified. The Fifth Circuit remanded the issue to Judge Harmon for further proceedings. The Fifth Circuit’s decision does not affect the $7.2 billion in settlements already recovered.

Lead plaintiff sought review of the Fifth Circuit’s decision in the Supreme Court by filing a petition for certiorari. The UC Regents and lead counsel were successful in getting the SEC to vote in favor of filing a brief in support of investors in the case Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., where the issue of scheme liability was raised (as in Enron), but other divisions of the Executive Branch overrode the SEC’s recommendation. The UC Regents filed an amicus brief in the case, urging the Court to find that liability exists where an actor knowingly uses or employs deceptive devices and contrivances as part of a scheme to defraud investors of another company even though the actor does not make affirmative misrepresentations. On January 15, 2008, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Stoneridge, ruling 5-3 in favor of defendants. On January 22, 2008, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Enron.


Press Releases:

• UC Begins Distributing Enron Settlement to Victimized Investors, 12/18/08
  
• UC reaches $11.5 million settlement with Goldman Sachs in Enron securities lawsuit, 02/05/08
  
• UC reaches $72.5 million settlement with Andersen in Enron securities fraud, 09/21/06
  
• UC reaches $13.5 million settlement Kirkland & Ellis in Enron securities class action, 09/21/06
  
• UC secures $2.4 billion settlement with CIBC in Enron fraud case, 08/02/05
  
• UC secures $2.2 billion settlement with JPMorgan Chase in Enron fraud case, 06/14/05
  
• UC reaches $2 billion settlement with Citigroup in Enron securities class action, 06/10/05
  
• UC reaches $168-million settlement with Enron directors in securities fraud case, 01/07/05
  
• Enron: Investors Recoup $222.5 Million from Lehman Bros. Alone for Its Role in Historic Fraud, 10/29/04
  
• UC reaches $69 million settlement with Bank of America in Enron securities case, 07/02/04
  
• Press Release Announcing UC Settles with Arthur Andersen's International Firms in Enron Lawsuit, 08/27/02
  

1.		Q:		Am I a class member for purposes of the settlement?
		A:		If you bought or acquired Enron or Enron-related securities between September 9, 1997 and December 2, 2001 (the "Settlement Class Period"), then you are a settlement class member. Class members include former Enron employees who held Enron stock through the Enron Savings Plan and the Employee Stock Ownership Plan if that stock was purchased during the Settlement Class Period.
2.		Q:		Who qualifies to receive a portion of any Enron settlement?
		A:		Any settlement class member who timely files a valid claim and suffers a loss as calculated under a court-approved Plan of Allocation.
3.		Q:		If I acquired stock through the Enron Savings Plan (401K), or the Enron Employee Stock Ownership Plan or the Cash Balance Plan, do I have to file a claim with Gilardi to participate in the settlement distribution in this case?
		A:		Not in most situations. You will need to file a claim for any shares for which you took a distribution in kind during the period 9/9/97 to 12/2/01, including taxable distributions and transfers to IRAs. Fiduciary Counselors Inc., the Independent Fiduciary of the plans, will file claims on your behalf for all other shares acquired by the plans.
4.		Q:		May I still file a claim?
		A:		As the counsel to the Enron class, we are committed to distributing the recoveries we have obtained as soon as possible to as many eligible class members as possible. Judge Harmon, who presides over the case, gave us permission to accept and process late claims "...so long as the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund is not materially delayed thereby." In order to avoid delays in the distribution of funds to eligible Enron investors, class counsel proposed to the Court one last extension of the claims deadline to Dec 1, 2009. No claim received after Dec 1, 2009 will be allowed unless accompanied by an explanation as to why it is late and only then if allowed by the Court. If you want to submit a proof of claim, please send it and an explanation as to why it is late to Gilardi & Co. If the claim is otherwise valid, your explanation will be forwarded to the Court, which will decide whether the late claim should be allowed.
5.		Q:		How much of my losses will I get back?
		A:		The net settlement fund will be divided among the class members who file valid claims. Because the amount any person receives will depend upon a variety of factors, including the number of persons who file, the amount of the claim, the Plan of Allocation, and the total amount of the settlement fund, we cannot tell you at this time how much money you will get back.
6.		Q:		When will I receive a check?
		A:		Gilardi & Co. mailed checks in the initial distribution in late December 2008; it mailed checks in the second distribution in mid-December 2009.
7.		Q:		How do the attorneys' fees work?
		A:		All attorneys’ fees will be paid from the settlement funds before distribution to class members. On September 8, 2008, Judge Harmon approved attorneys’ fees of 9.52% of the settlement funds, declaring the fee "fair and reasonable," and "substantially lower than fees awarded in other comparable class actions at the time the agreement was made..." Read the Opinion for more information.
8.		Q:		Will Jeff Skilling and others indicted for their involvement in the collapse of Enron receive any of the settlement proceeds?
		A:		No. Enron's former officers and directors are excluded from the class.
9.		Q:		What if I have other questions related to an Enron settlement?
		A:		Call 1-800-449-4900 or send an email to rickn@csgrr.com.