Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United States | 1-800-335-6202

In re Williams Securities Litigation

Document Cited authorities 66 Cited in 22 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Decision Date06 July 2007
Docket NumberNo. 02-cv-113-SPF-FHM.,No. 02-cv-072-SPF-FHM.,No. 02-cv-235-SPF-FHM.,No. 02-cv-107-SPF-FHM.,No. 02-cv-135-SPF-FHM.,No. 02-cv-077-SPF-FHM.,No. 02-cv-231-SPF-FHM.,No. 02-cv-130-SPF-FHM.,No. 02-cv-206-SPF-FHM.,No. 02-cv-081-SPF-FHM.,No. 02-cv-080-SPF-FHM.,No. 02-cv-218-SPF-FHM.,No. 02-cv-162-SPF-FHM.,No. 02-cv-184-SPF-FHM.,No. 02-cv-097-SPF-FHM.,No. 02-cv-078-SPF-FHM.,No. 02-cv-190-SPF-FHM.,No. 02-cv-093-SPF-FHM.,No. 02-cv-319-SPF-FHM.,No. 02-cv-189-SPF-FHM.,No. 02-cv-204-SPF-FHM.,No. 02-cv-095-SPF-FHM.,No. 02-cv-124-SPF-FHM.,No. 02-cv-161-SPF-FHM.,No. 02-cv-303-SPF-FHM.,No. 02-cv-205-SPF-FHM.,No. 02-cv-083-SPF-FHM.,No. 02-cv-132-SPF-FHM.,No. 02-cv-139-SPF-FHM.,No. 02-cv-120-SPF-FHM.,02-cv-072-SPF-FHM.,02-cv-077-SPF-FHM.,02-cv-078-SPF-FHM.,02-cv-080-SPF-FHM.,02-cv-081-SPF-FHM.,02-cv-083-SPF-FHM.,02-cv-093-SPF-FHM.,02-cv-095-SPF-FHM.,02-cv-097-SPF-FHM.,02-cv-107-SPF-FHM.,02-cv-113-SPF-FHM.,02-cv-120-SPF-FHM.,02-cv-124-SPF-FHM.,02-cv-130-SPF-FHM.,02-cv-132-SPF-FHM.,02-cv-135-SPF-FHM.,02-cv-139-SPF-FHM.,02-cv-161-SPF-FHM.,02-cv-162-SPF-FHM.,02-cv-184-SPF-FHM.,02-cv-189-SPF-FHM.,02-cv-190-SPF-FHM.,02-cv-204-SPF-FHM.,02-cv-205-SPF-FHM.,02-cv-206-SPF-FHM.,02-cv-218-SPF-FHM.,02-cv-231-SPF-FHM.,02-cv-235-SPF-FHM.,02-cv-303-SPF-FHM.,02-cv-319-SPF-FHM.
Citation496 F.Supp.2d 1195
PartiesIn re WILLIAMS SECURITIES LITIGATION. This Document Pertains To: WCG Subclass.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Oklahoma

496 F.Supp.2d 1195

In re WILLIAMS SECURITIES LITIGATION This Document Pertains To: WCG Subclass.

No. 02-cv-072-SPF-FHM.

No. 02-cv-077-SPF-FHM.

No. 02-cv-078-SPF-FHM.

No. 02-cv-080-SPF-FHM.

No. 02-cv-081-SPF-FHM.

No. 02-cv-083-SPF-FHM.

No. 02-cv-093-SPF-FHM.

No. 02-cv-095-SPF-FHM.

No. 02-cv-097-SPF-FHM.

No. 02-cv-107-SPF-FHM.

No. 02-cv-113-SPF-FHM.

No. 02-cv-120-SPF-FHM.

No. 02-cv-124-SPF-FHM.

No. 02-cv-130-SPF-FHM.

No. 02-cv-132-SPF-FHM.

No. 02-cv-135-SPF-FHM.

No. 02-cv-139-SPF-FHM.

No. 02-cv-161-SPF-FHM.

No. 02-cv-162-SPF-FHM.

No. 02-cv-184-SPF-FHM.

No. 02-cv-189-SPF-FHM.

No. 02-cv-190-SPF-FHM.

No. 02-cv-204-SPF-FHM.

No. 02-cv-205-SPF-FHM.

No. 02-cv-206-SPF-FHM.

No. 02-cv-218-SPF-FHM.

No. 02-cv-231-SPF-FHM.

No. 02-cv-235-SPF-FHM.

No. 02-cv-303-SPF-FHM.

No. 02-cv-319-SPF-FHM.

United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma.

July 6, 2007.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Behram Viraf Parekh, Yourman Alexander & Parekh, Leigh A. Parker, Weiss & Yourman, Brian Barry, Jill Levine, Brian Barry Law Office, Los Angeles, CA, Dael Cohen, Jared Specthrie, Joshua H. Vinik, Kent A. Bronson, Matthew A. Kupillas, Samuel H. Rudman, U. Seth Ottensoser, Jared Specthrie, Milberg Weiss LLP, Emily C. Komlossy, Lynda J. Grant, Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP, Eric James Belfi, Marvin Lawrence Frank, Murray Frank & Sailer LLP, Fred Taylor Isquith, Gregory Mark Nespole, Jeffrey G. Smith, Michael Jaffe, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, Samuel Kenneth Rosen, Harwood Feffer LLP, New York City, James Rouse Hicks, Ronald Joseph Saffa, Morrel Saffa Craige Hicks Barnhart & Brunton, William Walker O'Connor, Norman Wohlgemuth Chandler & Dowdell, Gerald Joseph Lovoi, Tulsa, OK, Cari Campen Laufenberg, Laurie Bernice Ashton, Keller Rohrback LLP, Phoenix, AZ, George Patrick O'Hara, Sr, Whitten Nelson McGuire Terry & Roselius, Oklahoma City, OK, Michael I. Behn, Behn & Wyetzner Chartered, William Woods Thomas, Futterman & Howard Chtd., Chicago, IL, Andrew Michael Schatz, Schatz & Nobel PC, Hartford, CT, John G. Emerson, Jr., Emerson Poynter LLP, Little Rock, AR, David B. Kahn, David B. Kahn & Associates Ltd, Northfield, IL, Jerold B. Hoffman, Hoffman & Edelson LLC, Doylestown, PA, Michael Burrage, Burrage Law Firm, Durant, OK, for Plaintiffs.

Jeremy J. Brandon, John Turner, Jonathan Bridges, William C. Carmody, Susman Godfrey LLP, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiffs/Movants.

Charles Robert Burton, IV, R. Thomas Seymour, Seymour Law Firm, Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiffs/Intervenor Plaintiff/Movants.

Samuel Philips Sporn, Schoengold Sporn Laitmain & Lometti PC, New York City, for Intervenor Plaintiff/Movants.

Alex Anton Goldberg, Williams Companies Inc, Graydon Dean Luthey, Jr., Stephanie Ann Horton, Sarah Jane Gillett, Hall Estill Hardwick Gable Golden & Nelson, Gerald Lee Jackson, James L. Kincaid, Michael James Gibbens, Victor Eric Morgan, Christopher Benton Woods, Susan E. Huntsman, Michael Robert Pacewicz, Crowe & Dunlevy, Frederic Dorwart, John Daniel Clayman, Fred Dorwart Lawyers, Tulsa, OK, Darren L. McCarty, Crews Shepherd & McCarty LLP, Ralph I. Miller, Vance L. Beagles, Yolanda Cornejo Garcia, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Dallas, TX, Ethan D. Dettmer, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Peter Allen Wald, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA, Joseph Peter Busch, III, Meryl L. Young Wayne W. Smith, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Irvine, CA, Sally J. Berens, Timothy K. Roake, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Patrick Michael Ryan, Phillip Gardner Whaley, Grant M. Lucky, Ryan Whaley Coldiron and Shandy PC, Mary H. (Molly) Tolbert, Charles B. Goodwin, Mack Jay Morgan, III, Crowe & Dunlevy, Timothy James Bomhoff, McAfee & Taft, Brooks Allen Richardson, Jay Patrick Walters, Warren Franklin Bickford, IV, John Barnes Heatly, Fellers Snider Blankenship Bailey & Tippens, Oklahoma City, OK, Charles W. Cox, Ethan J. Brown, Jamie Lynne Wine, Jill M. Ray, Miles N. Ruthberg, Latham & Watkins, Los Angeles, CA, Christopher Harris, Robert J. Malionek, Latham & Watkins, Israel Dahan, Jonathan M. Hoff, Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft, New York City, Paul V. Konovalov, Latham & Watkins, Costa Mesa, CA, for Defendants.

Sheila Miller Bradley, Tony Michael Graham, Graham & Freeman PLLC, Tulsa, OK, for Intervenor.

Scott Alan Graham, Seymour Law Firm, Charles Greenough, Reuben Davis, Boone Smith Davis Hurst & Dickman, Scott Anthony Troy, Tulsa, OK, Stuart L. Berman, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, Radnor, PA, William Bernard Federman, Federman & Sherwood, Joe Earl Edwards, Joel W. Harmon, Thomas Pitchlynn Howell, IV, Day Edwards Propester & Christensen, John E. Barbush, PC, Oklahoma City, OK, Michael T. Fantini, Berger & Montague PC, Philadelphia, PA, Gregory J. Myers, Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, Minneapolis, MN, Edward Frank Siegel, Siegel & Associates, Cleveland, OH, for Movants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

FRIOT, District Judge. 

                                                  Table of Contents
                  I.  Introduction ......................................................................1201
                      A.  Preliminary matters ...........................................................1201
                      B.  The Daubert and summary judgment record .......................................1204
                 II.  Factual Background ................................................................1204
                III.  Procedural History ................................................................1227
                 IV.  Summary of the claims of the WCG Subclass .........................................1229
                      A.  Rule 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 Claims — Basic Elements .......................1229
                      B.  Section 20(a) Claims — Basic Elements ...................................1229
                  V.  The Daubert Motions ...............................................................1230
                      A.  The general framework for Daubert analysis in this case .......................1230
                      B.  Qualifications ................................................................1232
                      C.  Reliability ...................................................................1233
                      D.  The Daubert challenges with respect to Messrs. Mathis and Mintzer .............1235
                          1.  The division of labor between Messrs. Mathis and Mintzer with
                               respect to FAS 121 impairment analysis ...................................1238
                          2.  The experts' methodology vs. the methodology the accountants were
                               required to employ in their audit-related work ...........................1239
                          3.  Daubert analysis — proposed expert testimony of H. Sean Mathis ......1242
                              a.  Qualifications ........................................................1242
                              b.  Reliability ...........................................................1245
                          4.  Daubert analysis — proposed expert testimony of Andrew M. Mintzer ...1248
                              a.  Qualifications ........................................................1249
                              b.  Reliability ...........................................................1249
                      E.  Daubert analysis — proposed expert testimony of Dr. Blaine Nye ..........1252
                
                          1.  Dr. Nye's three damage scenarios ..........................................1253
                              a.  Scenario 1 ............................................................1253
                                   (i) General description of Scenario 1 ................................1253
                                  (ii) Corrective disclosures — Scenario 1 ........................1256
                              b.  Scenario 2 ............................................................1258
                              c.  Alternative Scenario 2 ................................................1260
                          2.  Qualifications ............................................................1261
                          3.  Reliability ...............................................................1261
                              a.  The loss causation requirement ........................................1262
                                    (i) Loss causation — basic rules ..............................1262
                                   (ii) Loss causation — limits of the doctrine ...................1264
                                  (iii) Loss causation — materialization of the risk ..............1265
                              b.  The Daubert challenge as to Dr. Nye's Scenario 1 (common stock) .......1266
                              c.  The Daubert challenge as to Dr. Nye's Scenario 2 (common stock) .......1267
                                    (i) Corrective disclosures on or after January 29, 2002 .............1267
                                   (ii) The constant percentage inflation approach ......................1269
                              d.  The Daubert challenge as to Dr. Nye's Alternative Scenario 2
                                   (common stock) .......................................................1270
                              e.  The Daubert challenge with respect to the notes .......................1271
                 VI.  The Motions for Summary Judgment ..................................................1275
                      A.  The Williams Companies, Inc. and Keith E. Bailey's Motion for Partial
                           Summary Judgment on Alleged Misstatements and Omissions Made
                           Before WCG's Spin-Off from Williams ...........................................1276
                      B.  Motion of the Williams Companies, Inc. and Keith E. Bailey for Partial
                           Summary Judgment on Alleged Misstatements or Omissions Made
                           After WCG's Spin-Off from Williams ............................................1283
                      C.  Defendant Ernst & Young LLP's Motion for Summary Judgment ..................1285
                          1.  Material misstatements or omissions ........................................1286
                          2.  Scienter as to E & Y ...................................................1288
                      D.  WCG Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment ....................................1290
                          1.  WCG's contentions ..........................................................1290
                          2.  Plaintiffs' response to
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • In Re Remec Incorporated Securities Litigation. This Document Relates To All Actions.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • 21 d3 Abril d3 2010
    ... ... Goodwill is an intangible asset that reflects the excess of the cost of an acquired entity over the net of the amounts assigned to assets acquired and liabilities assumed. Williams Decl. Ex. 1 at 105. 5 In other words, goodwill, though it is an intangible asset, must be measured. If the value of the goodwill is impaired, the company 702 F.Supp.2d 1213 must deduct or write off that value on the balance sheet. When the value is positive, the company records goodwill as an ... ...
  • Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Goldstone
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • 22 d6 Agosto d6 2015
    ... SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. LARRY A. GOLDSTONE, CLARENCE G. SIMMONS, III, and JANE E ... Reddy, Barrie L. Ringelheim, John W. Straley, Jim Tymeck, John W. Williams, Patricia E. Lenza, Michael P. Hynes, Scott Richter, James Dougherty, Lyndon James, Doreen Della ... Securities, Derivative, and ERISA Litigation -- is not binding on the Court and that, even there, the district court recognized that there is ... ...
  • Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co. v. Solstice ABS CBO II, Ltd.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 20 d4 Dezembro d4 2012
    ... ... Notes, Class A Notes), Class B Notes and Class C Notes, as well as two classes of equity securities. (3/28/12 Order at 2.) The holders of the secured notes made loans to the Issuer for the face ... United States v. Williams, 506 F.3d 151, 160 (2d Cir.2007) (citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593 ... Clear contractual language does not become ambiguous simply because the parties to the litigation argue different interpretations. E.g., Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Turner Constr. Co., 2 N.Y.2d 456, ... ...
  • Ploss v. Kraft Foods Grp., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 3 d5 Janeiro d5 2020
    ... ... get a signal about what Kraft was going to do in the wheat market, and that before this litigation, Ploss did not know when Kraft bought its December long position. Id. at 28; see also R ... is often referred to as a "fraud on the market" theory, and is often invoked in securities-fraud cases. It posits that "in an open and developed securities market, the price of a company's ... Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC , 752 F.3d 82, 97 (1st Cir. 2014) ; In re Williams Sec. Litig. , 496 F. Supp. 2d 1195, 1272-73 (N.D. Okla. 2007), aff'd. sub nom., In re Williams ... ...
    • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT