478252_3 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

LAWRENCE E. JAFFE PENSION PLAN, On 

Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly 

Situated, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL, INC., et 

al., 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Lead Case No. 02-C-5893 

(Consolidated) 

CLASS ACTION

Judge Ronald A. Guzman 

Magistrate Judge Nan R. Nolan 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

Case 1:02-cv-05893 Document 1672 Filed 03/22/10 Page 1 of 15
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

- i - 

478252_3 

I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................................2 

III. ARGUMENT.......................................................................................................................6 

IV. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................10 

Case 1:02-cv-05893 Document 1672 Filed 03/22/10 Page 2 of 15
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Page 

- ii - 

478252_3 

CASES 

Backman v. Polaroid, 

No. 79-1031 Mc, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15834 

(D. Mass June 28, 1988) ......................................................................................................8 

Boeing v. Van Gemert, 

444 U.S. 472 (1980).............................................................................................................9 

Buchanan v. United States, 

82 F.3d 706 (7th Cir. 1996) .................................................................................................7 

In re Apollo Group Inc. Sec. Litig., 

No. CV-04-2147 PHX, 2008 WL 410625 

(D. Az. Feb. 13, 2008) ...............................................................................................2, 8, 10 

Int’l Ass’n of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental & Reinforcing Ironworkers’ Local 

Union 75 v. Madison Indus., Inc., 

733 F.2d 656 (9th Cir. 1984) ...............................................................................................7 

Local 504 v. Roadmaster Corp., 

954 F.2d 1397 (7th Cir. 1992) .............................................................................................9 

Parks v. Pavkovic, 

753 F.2d 1397 (7th Cir. 1985) .....................................................................................2, 8, 9 

Winston Networks, Inc. v. Indiana H.B.R. Co., 

944 F.2d 1351 (7th Cir. 1991) .............................................................................................9 

STATUTES, RULES AND REGULATIONS 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

Rule 50(b) ..........................................................................................................................10 

Rule 50(5)(b)........................................................................................................................8 

Rule 58.................................................................................................................................7 

Rule 58(a).......................................................................................................................7, 10 

Rule 58(b) ............................................................................................................................7 

Rule 58(d) ........................................................................................................................1, 7 

Rule 59...............................................................................................................................10 

Rule 62(b) ..........................................................................................................................10 

Case 1:02-cv-05893 Document 1672 Filed 03/22/10 Page 3 of 15
- 1 - 

478252_3 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Lead Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter the attached judgment pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(d). See Proposed Judgment, attached hereto as Ex. A. Lead 

Plaintiffs’ request is driven by Household’s financial condition and HSBC’s express intention to 

ignore any judgment in this case. In early 2009, HSBC announced it was abandoning its main 

business – making loans – shutting down almost all of Household’s consumer lending operations and 

closing all 800 Household branch offices. In addition, Household has been transferring billions in 

assets to other HSBC affiliates or subsidiaries, leaving Household itself in a precarious financial 

condition. More importantly, Household and HSBC’s public statements about this litigation suggest 

that they have no intention of ever honoring the jury’s verdict in this case. Household has repeatedly 

stated in its post-verdict SEC filings that it expects to prevail on its outstanding motions in this Court 

or on appeal in the Seventh Circuit. And, to make matters worse, Household has refused to establish 

any litigation reserve for this case – despite the potential loss of in excess of $1 billion. Household’s 

parent company behaves no differently. HSBC has consistently made statements in its SEC filings 

that it will contest the enforceability of any judgments obtained against it or its subsidiaries in 

American courts based on the civil liability provisions of United States securities laws despite the 

fact that it generates billions in revenues from U.S. citizens. In short, this Court is faced with an 

arrogant, recalcitrant defendant, which refuses to admit wrongdoing and actively dissipates its assets 

– while thumbing its nose at the verdict and the American legal system. 

As a result of all of these uncertainties, Lead Plaintiffs believe it is in the best interests of the 

Class to seek entry of judgment and require Household to post a bond equal to at least 50% of the 

potential total claims in this case. As set forth in Plaintiff’s Post-Verdict Submission, there should 

be no discovery of class members on the issue of defendants’ rebuttal of the presumption of reliance. 

Evidence from the trial clearly established that defendants did not share any adverse non-public 

Case 1:02-cv-05893 Document 1672 Filed 03/22/10 Page 4 of 15
- 2 - 

478252_3 

information with any class member which is the only basis to rebut the presumption. See Plaintiffs’ 

Post-Verdict Submission at 4-15 [Dkt. No. 1622]. 

Lead Plaintiffs’ request is not without precedent. Entry of judgment after verdict and prior to 

resolution of post-trial motions and completion of the claims process was recently ordered by the 

Court in the Apollo securities case. See Apollo Jan. 30, 2008 Judgment.1

 In Apollo, a class action 

case, the jury returned a verdict in January 2008 of $5.55 per share in damages for each day of the 

Class Period. The Apollo trial court subsequently entered judgment. A week later the Apollo court 

required defendants to post a bond of $95 million, which was 50% of the estimated total claims of 

$190 million. See In re Apollo Group Inc. Sec. Litig., No. CV-04-2147 PHX, 2008 WL 410625 (D. 

Az. Feb. 13, 2008), Burkholz Decl., Ex. 2. This Court should enter a similar order. See also Parks 

v. Pavkovic, 753 F.2d 1397 (7th Cir. 1985) (entry of judgment by trial court appropriate and appeal 

proceeds while trial court retains jurisdiction to determine the amount of each individual class 

member’s claim). In addition to entering judgment, the Court should award prejudgment and postjudgment interest, approve the damages formula and plan of allocation to calculate class members’ 

claims, and approve the notice to send to class members, as set forth in Plaintiffs’ Post-Verdict 

Submission, which was filed on May 28, 2009. The Court can retain jurisdiction over the claims 

administration process and any subsequent request for attorneys’ fees and costs, and to modify the 

judgment to reflect the total amount of the judgment after class members’ claims are determined. 

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 

On November 14, 2002, after this action was filed, defendant Household International, Inc. 

and HSBC Holdings plc announced a merger. Following shareholder approval of the transaction on 

 

1

 Attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Spencer A. Burkholz in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Entry of Judgment (“Burkholz Decl.”), filed herewith. 

Case 1:02-cv-05893 Document 1672 Filed 03/22/10 Page 5 of 15
- 3 - 

478252_3 

March 28, 2003, Household became a wholly owned subsidiary of HSBC by way of a stock-forstock merger. In 2004, HSBC reorganized some of its subsidiaries, including Household. As a 

result, HSBC became the owner of HSBC North America Holdings Inc., which became the owner of 

Household, which was renamed HSBC Finance. Household 2009 Form 10-K, at 4, 25, Burkholz 

Decl., Ex. 3.2

On March 2, 2009, HSBC announced that it was going to close almost all of Household’s 

consumer lending operations. To that end, HSBC wrote off 100 percent of the remaining $10.6 

billion in goodwill it recorded when it acquired Household. HSBC also stopped writing any loans 

through Household, and announced it would close 800 branches and terminate approximately 6,100 

employees, and that it would “run off” its loan business over the next few years. HSBC Holdings 

plc, Mar. 2, 2009 Form 6-K, at 12, Burkholz Decl., Ex. 4. 

Household’s only business is its credit card originations, and even a portion of that business 

is being sold off on a daily basis to HSBC Bank USA. September 30, 2009 Form 10-Q at 61, 

Burkholz Decl., Ex. 5. As a result, Household is no longer a “core” business of HSBC according to 

the rating agencies, who have lowered their ratings of Household debt due to concerns that HSBC 

will not continue to support Household’s operations. Household 2009 Form 10-K at 31, Burkholz 

Decl., Ex. 3.

During an investor conference call on March 2, 2009, HSBC stated it wished it had never 

acquired Household. HSBC’s CEO explained: 

As you know, we tell it as it is, and today will be no exception. Therefore, I say that 

with a benefit of hindsight the Group wishes that [we] hadn’t made this investment 

[i.e., hadn’t acquired Household]. And that is recognized by the write-off in full of 

the goodwill arising on this deal. But we are where we are and we believe that the 

 

2

 Lead Plaintiffs will continue to refer to HSBC Finance as Household in this memorandum of law. 

Case 1:02-cv-05893 Document 1672 Filed 03/22/10 Page 6 of 15
- 4 - 

478252_3 

majority of our shareholders wish us to collect these assets which are now noncore and then move on. 

HSBC Q4 2008 Conference Call Transcript dated March 2, 2009, at 8 (emphasis added), Burkholz 

Decl., Ex. 6. HSBC’s CFO also stated that the fair value of Household’s consumer loan assets was 

“minus mid-40s billion” (at that time) because there is no market for the assets. Conference Call 

Transcript at 17. The value of Household’s remaining subprime assets cannot even support its 

operations. During the same call, HSBC’s CEO explained “[a]s the revenues fall from a lower base 

of assets and impairments remain elevated, the next two years will be challenging, and further capital 

will need to be injected.” Id. at 9.

Household remains in a precarious financial condition. It reported a net loss of $7.4 billion 

in 2009 (2009 Form 10-K at 23), and expects to generate losses for at least the next two years. 2009 

Form 10-K at 28.3

Despite its financial problems – or more likely because of them – Household is transferring 

dividends to HSBC and assets to other HSBC affiliates. In January 2009, for example, Household 

made a bulk sale of $15.4 billion in better quality credit card and auto receivables to an HSBC 

affiliate, HSBC Bank USA. 2009 Form 10-K at 7, 8, 30, 51 (notes 3, 4), 204. As part of the 

agreement, all new credit originations are sold on a daily basis by Household to HSBC Bank USA – 

this amount was in excess of $11 billion in 2009. 2009 Form 10-K at 104. Household has made 

 

3

 Although Household reported in its 2009 Form 10-K that it had $94 billion in assets, with $86 billion 

in liabilities, the difference of $7.8 billion in net equity “value” is misleading because the overwhelming 

majority of Household’s assets are its subprime mortgages and personal loans that are worth far less than their 

stated value. 2009 Form 10-K at 139. In fact, Household’s recent 10-K reflects that the fair value of 

consumer receivables was minus $26 billion. (Carrying value of $76 billion versus fair value of $50 billion.) 

2009 Form 10-K at 218. 

Case 1:02-cv-05893 Document 1672 Filed 03/22/10 Page 7 of 15
- 5 - 

478252_3 

similar transfers in the past.4 2008 Form 10-K, at 31, Burkholz Decl., Ex. 7; 2009 Form 10-K at 7, 

8, 30, 51 (notes 3, 4), 204. 

HSBC has stated that it will stand behind the bondholders of Household, even though its 

debts are non-recourse to HSBC. HSBC, FT.com, Mar. 2, 2009, Burkholz Decl., Ex. 8. However, 

there is no guarantee that HSBC will maintain this position and continue to fund Household which is 

dependent on such funding for its survival. HSBC may allow Household to file bankruptcy, or 

continue to transfer all or most of its assets to other HSBC entities, or do a “bulk sale” of 

Household’s mortgages and leave Household as a shell entity. If any of these scenarios unfold, 

plaintiffs will become either unsecured creditors in a Household bankruptcy or face a shell entity, 

and potentially recover nothing from Household. In fact, in a recent 10-Q, Household stated that 

there will be “further strategic actions that may include changes to our legal structure, additional 

asset sales.” September 30, 2009 Form 10-Q at 61. Although Household claims it has “no intent to 

execute bulk sales of our run-off receivables,” it also states that “should market pricing improve in 

the future, our intent may change.” 2009 Form 10-K at 54. In sum, Household could “wind down” 

its business next year by selling off its portfolio if conditions improve, resulting in minimal assets 

left over at Household. The fact that Household’s net receivables have declined from $98 billion at 

12/31/08 to $78 billion at 12/31/09 – over 20% – increases the likelihood that Household could do a 

bulk sale which would wipe out Household’s remaining assets. The “run-off” mode would become 

“ran-off,” with no assets for investors to collect. 

And HSBC has made it clear that no matter what happens, it will desperately try to avoid 

paying the plaintiffs. In its 2009 annual report, HSBC stated that a judgment in favor of plaintiffs is 

 

4

 In 2008, Household sold 19.3 billion of credit card receivables to HSBC Bank USA. Household 2009 

10-K at 104. 

Case 1:02-cv-05893 Document 1672 Filed 03/22/10 Page 8 of 15
- 6 - 

478252_3 

unenforceable against HSBC even though HSBC purchased the assets and liabilities of Household – 

including the contingent liability of this case, stating: 

[I]t may not be possible . . . to enforce judgments obtained in US courts against 

[HSBC directors and executive officers] or HSBC Holdings based on civil liability 

provisions of the securities laws of the US. There is doubt as to whether English 

courts would enforce: 

• certain civil liabilities under US securities laws in original actions; or 

• judgments of US courts based upon these civil liability provisions. 

HSBC Holdings plc, 2009 Annual Report, at 472, Burkholz Decl., Ex. 9. In short, plaintiffs can 

expect HSBC to fight every action to hold them responsible for the judgment in this case. 

Finally, Household refuses to accept the jury’s verdict. In its recent 10-K, Household stated 

that “[d]espite the verdict at the District Court level, we continue to believe, after consultation with 

counsel, that neither Household nor its former officers committed any wrongdoing and that we will 

either prevail on our outstanding motions to dismiss or that the Seventh Circuit will reverse the trial 

Court verdict upon appeal.” Household 2009 Form 10-K at 221. Household also has refused to 

establish any litigation reserve as a result of the verdict. Id. Household’s decision is an 

extraordinary one. In stark contrast, Vivendi Corporation, the defendant in another securities class 

action lawsuit, recently took a litigation reserve of 550 million Euros following a January 29, 2010 

per share verdict of $.13 to $10.00, despite its statement that it intends to appeal the verdict. See

Vivendi Disclosure at 10, 145, Burkholz Decl., Ex. 10. 

III. ARGUMENT 

The jury found that defendants Household International, William Aldinger, David 

Schoenholz, and Gary Gilmer violated the federal securities laws and determined per share damages 

for the period March 23, 2001 through October 11, 2002 (“Damage Period”). The only remaining 

uncertainty is the total amount of valid claims that will be filed by class members. Lead Plaintiffs 

estimate that defendants will be obligated to pay somewhere between $2.4-$3.2 billion to class 

Case 1:02-cv-05893 Document 1672 Filed 03/22/10 Page 9 of 15
- 7 - 

478252_3 

members. See Second Supplemental Declaration of Bjorn Steinholt, CFA (“Steinholt Decl.”), ¶¶2-

18, Burkholz Decl., Ex. 11. Although this sum certain will not be finalized until the completion of 

the claims process (which could take 1-2 years depending on a number of factors), judgment should 

be entered now, and a bond required to protect the verdict. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(d) provides that “[a] party may request that judgment be 

set out in a separate document as required by Rule 58(a).” Rule 58(a), in turn, provides that “[e]very 

judgment and amended judgment must be set out in a separate document,” but for certain exceptions 

not relevant here. “Rule 58 is designed to encourage all reasonable speed in formulating and 

entering the judgment when the case has been decided.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 Advisory Committee 

Note, 1963 Amendment. 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(b), judgment should be entered when the jury 

returns a general verdict. The Seventh Circuit explained that a judgment is final when it specifies 

“either the amount of money due the plaintiff or a formula by which that amount of money could be 

computed in mechanical fashion.” Buchanan v. United States, 82 F.3d 706, 707 (7th Cir. 1996). 

Here, the jury has already determined per share inflation for each day that Household’s stock was 

affected by defendants’ fraud (March 23, 2001 through October 11, 2002). The amount of money 

due the plaintiffs and class members can be calculated by the claims administrator using a 

straightforward, mechanical damage formula determined by the Court. Plaintiffs submitted a 

proposed damage formula and plan of allocation to the Court in Plaintiffs’ Post-Verdict Submission, 

which was filed on May 28, 2009. Thus, entry of final judgment is appropriate in this case.5

 

5

 For the purposes of overseeing the claims procedure, this Court should retain jurisdiction over the 

claims procedure as well as the nature and amount of the distribution to be made to members of the Class who 

file valid claims. This Court should also retain jurisdiction over any award to the class representatives and 

their counsel of attorneys’ fees and costs in this action. See, e.g., Int’l Ass’n of Bridge, Structural, 

Case 1:02-cv-05893 Document 1672 Filed 03/22/10 Page 10 of 15
- 8 - 

478252_3 

Where a per-share damages award is determinable based upon a jury’s verdict, judgment may 

be entered. This case mirrors In re Apollo Group Inc. Securities Litigation in which the District 

Court of Arizona entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs even though the total dollar amount of the 

judgment could not be determined. In re Apollo Group Inc. Sec. Litig., Judgment, No. 2:04-cv02147-JAT (D. Az. Jan. 30, 2008). In Apollo, the judgment was based on a per-share damages 

award identical to the per-share damages award in this case. In re Apollo Group Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 

2:04-cv-02147-JAT, 2008 WL 410625, at *1 (D. Az. Feb. 13, 2008) (order granting stay of 

execution) (“On January 30, 2008, this Court entered judgment jointly and severally against 

Defendants in an amount up to $5.55 per share for all qualifying shares. Because of the per-share 

nature of the damages, the total amount of this judgment will not be known until the claims process 

is completed.”).6

 Similar to Apollo, in the present case the jury found damages on a per-share basis 

for the Damages Period. This Court has discretion to enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs based on 

the per-share dollar amount of damages found by the jury.7

Apollo does not stand alone. In Parks, 753 F.2d 1397, the Seventh Circuit approved a similar 

judgment entered by the trial court. In Parks, a class action on behalf of handicapped children and 

their parents, the state was ordered to reimburse class members for certain living expenses. Parks, 

753 F.2d at 1401. The trial court did not compute the amount of reimbursement due, but the appeals 

 

Ornamental & Reinforcing Ironworkers’ Local Union 75 v. Madison Indus., Inc., 733 F.2d 656, 658-59 (9th 

Cir. 1984) (judgment on merits is final where court reserves question of fees for later consideration). 

6

 In another securities class action case tried to a jury, the district court entered judgment following a 

verdict of $9.75 per share. Backman v. Polaroid, No. 79-1031 Mc, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15834 (D. Mass 

June 28, 1988). Although the jury verdict in Backman was later reversed on other grounds at 910 F.2d 10 

(1st Cir. 1990), a copy of the original judgment is submitted herewith for the Court’s consideration. Burkholz 

Decl., Ex. 12. 

7

 In Apollo, seven months after judgment, the court granted defendants’ motion for judgment under 

Rule 50(5)(b). See Apollo Aug. 4, 2008 Order, Burkholz Decl., Ex. 13. 

Case 1:02-cv-05893 Document 1672 Filed 03/22/10 Page 11 of 15
- 9 - 

478252_3 

court was informed it was between $1.5 million and $3 million. Id. The Seventh Circuit Court of 

Appeals found that the entry of judgment in these circumstances was proper and that it had 

jurisdiction over the appeal. The Court held “if the determination of damages will be mechanical 

and uncontroversial, so that the issues the defendant wants to appeal before that determination is 

made are very unlikely to be mooted or altered by it – in legal jargon, if only a ‘ministerial’ task 

remains for the district court to perform – then immediate appeal is allowed.” Id. (citing Boeing v. 

Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472, 479 (1980)). In this case, defendants’ liability has been determined and a 

proposed damages formula and plan of allocation has been submitted to the Court for consideration. 

If this Court adopts the damages formula and plan of allocation, the claims administrator can simply 

follow this Court’s “ministerial” task of determining each class member’s claim. 

Similarly, in Local 504 v. Roadmaster Corp., 954 F.2d 1397 (7th Cir. 1992), the Seventh 

Circuit followed the Parks rule and affirmed entry of judgment even when the judgment failed to fix 

the precise amount of damages. Id. at 1402. In Roadmaster, the district court ruled that defendants’ 

amendments to the company pension plan were invalid, and ordered defendants to pay past benefits 

back into the plan but did not quantify the amount. Id. at 1401. The court held that the amount of 

benefit was set by a formula in the plan and the post-judgment calculation of accrual benefits would 

not make the appeal moot or affect the issues on appeal. Id. at 1402. See also Winston Networks, 

Inc. v. Indiana H.B.R. Co., 944 F.2d 1351, 1356 (7th Cir. 1991) (upholding jurisdiction and finding 

the district court’s entry of “final” judgment proper even though the district court retained 

jurisdiction for the purpose of calculating damages). 

In short, HSBC is intentionally winding down Household’s business and transferring or 

selling off more valuable Household assets. As set forth above, HSBC’s actions may affect 

plaintiffs’ ability to ultimately obtain relief if judgment is not entered and defendants are not forced 

Case 1:02-cv-05893 Document 1672 Filed 03/22/10 Page 12 of 15
- 10 - 

478252_3 

to post a bond soon. Entry of judgment will protect the Class and allow the appellate process to 

commence.8

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in this 

action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a). 

DATED: March 22, 2010 Respectfully submitted, 

COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER 

 RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP 

PATRICK J. COUGHLIN (111070) 

MICHAEL J. DOWD (135628) 

SPENCER A. BURKHOLZ (147029) 

DANIEL S. DROSMAN (200643) 

MAUREEN E. MUELLER (253431) 

/s/ SPENCER A. BURKHOLZ 

SPENCER A. BURKHOLZ 

 

8

 Should the Court enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs as requested, plaintiffs anticipate that 

defendants will file a motion for stay of execution pending the Court’s disposition of defendant’s consolidated 

Rule 50(b) and 59 motion and the class member claims process. If a stay is granted, plaintiffs request that 

defendants be required to post a proper security as expressly contemplated by Rule 62(b). A bond is needed 

to protect plaintiffs’ interests during the pendency of the post-trial motions and claims process. Since this 

case involves a per-share judgment, the value of the security should be based on an estimate of the judgment 

determined by the expected number of qualifying shares and the expected number of claims that will be 

submitted. In the Apollo securities class action case, the Court required defendants to post a bond of $95 

million based on the jury’s findings of $5.55 per-share damages multiplied by the number of qualifying shares 

and a claim recovery rate of 50%. In re Apollo Group, 2008 WL 410625, at *2. Because this case involves a 

high percentage of institutional investors, which historically turn in a higher percentage of claims than 

individual investors, a claims rate at least as high as the 50% predicted in Apollo should be expected. Total 

damages in this case are estimated to be $3.2 billion – not including prejudgment interest. See Steinholt 

Decl., ¶2-18. Applying a 50% claims rule would result in total claims of $1.6 billion, not including 

prejudgment interest. Plaintiffs therefore believe a total bond of at least $1.6 billion should be required as 

security for judgment pursuant to Rule 62(b). 

Case 1:02-cv-05893 Document 1672 Filed 03/22/10 Page 13 of 15
- 11 - 

478252_3 

655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 

San Diego, CA 92101 

Telephone: 619/231-1058 

619/231-7423 (fax) 

COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER 

 RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP 

LUKE O. BROOKS (90785469) 

JASON C. DAVIS (253370) 

100 Pine Street, Suite 2600 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: 415/288-4545 

415/288-4534 (fax) 

Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs 

MILLER LAW LLC 

MARVIN A. MILLER 

LORI A. FANNING 

115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910 

Chicago, IL 60603 

Telephone: 312/332-3400 

312/676-2676 (fax) 

Liaison Counsel 

LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE G. 

 SOICHER 

LAWRENCE G. SOICHER 

110 East 59th Street, 25th Floor 

New York, NY 10022 

Telephone: 212/883-8000 

212/355-6900 (fax) 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Case 1:02-cv-05893 Document 1672 Filed 03/22/10 Page 14 of 15
478252_3 

DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC MAIL AND BY U.S. MAIL

I, the undersigned, declare: 

1. That declarant is and was, at all times herein mentioned, a citizen of the United States 

and employed in the City and County of San Diego, State of California, over the age of 18 years, and 

not a party to or interested party in the within action; that declarant’s business address is 655 West 

Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, California 92101. 

2. That on March 22, 2010, declarant served by electronic mail and by U.S. Mail to the 

parties the MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ENTRY 

OF JUDGMENT. 

The parties’ email addresses are as follows: 

TKavaler@cahill.com

PSloane@cahill.com

PFarren@cahill.com

LBest@cahill.com

DOwen@cahill.com

NEimer@EimerStahl.com

ADeutsch@EimerStahl.com

MMiller@MillerLawLLC.com

LFanning@MillerLawLLC.com

and by U.S. Mail to: 

Lawrence G. Soicher, Esq. 

Law Offices of Lawrence G. Soicher 

110 East 59th Street, 25th Floor 

New York, NY 10022 

David R. Scott, Esq. 

Scott & Scott LLC 

108 Norwich Avenue 

Colchester, CT 06415 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 22nd 

day of March, 2010, at San Diego, California. 

/s/ Mo Maloney 

Mo Maloney 

Case 1:02-cv-05893 Document 1672 Filed 03/22/10 Page 15 of 15