UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

LAWRENCE E. JAFFE PENSION PLAN, ON

BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS

SIMILARLY SITUATED,

Plaintiffs,

Lead Case No. 02-C-5893

(Consolidated)

v.

CLASS ACTION

Judge Ronald A. Guzman

HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET

AL.,

Defendants.

DEFENDANTS’ RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW OR,

IN THE ALTERNATIVE, A NEW TRIAL

Defendants Household International, Inc., William F. Aldinger, David A. Schoenholz,

and Gary Gilmer (collectively “Defendants”), respectfully move for judgment as a matter of law

pursuant to Rule 50(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or, in the alternative, a new trial

pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In support of this motion, and

pursuant to this Court’s Order, Doc. 1856, Defendants submit herewith, and expressly

incorporate herein, Defendants’ Memorandum of Law In Support of Defendants’ Renewed

Motion For Judgment As A Matter of Law Or, In The Alternative, A New Trial (“Memorandum

of Law”).

As more fully set forth in the Memorandum of Law incorporated herein, Defendants are

entitled to judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(b) on multiple grounds, including:

Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 1866 Filed: 07/30/13 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:57867
2

1. Plaintiffs failed to present competent evidence to prove the essential element of

loss causation. See Memorandum of Law at 5-22. Plaintiffs’ “leakage model” failed to establish

loss causation as a matter of law for multiple reasons, including: (1) the leakage model failed to

identify the misrepresentations alleged to have introduced inflation into Household’s Stock Price,

see Memorandum of Law at 8-11; (2) the leakage model failed to establish a causal connection

between an alleged misrepresentation and a loss, see Memorandum of Law at 11-16; (3) the

leakage model failed to account properly for stock price declines resulting from non-fraud firmspecific factors, see Memorandum of Law at 16-20; and (4) the leakage model had numerous

additional infirmities that reinforce the model’s structural errors, see Memorandum of Law at 20-

22.

2. The jury’s finding that the March 23, 2001 statement introduced the leakage

model’s sum total of inflation into the stock price precludes, as a matter of law, either materiality

or application of the “fraud-on-the-market” presumption of reliance as to other statements. See

Memorandum of Law at 31-34. Independently, because the jury found that all inflation in the

market price of Household stock was attributable to the March 23, 2001 statement, but that

Defendant Schoenholz was not liable for that statement, Defendant Schoenholz is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law. See Memorandum of Law at 34.

3. Judgment in Defendants’ favor is further required because there was no legally

tenable basis for the jury to find the three theories of fraud presented by Plaintiffs—restatement,

predatory lending, and re-aging—to be actionable. As a matter of law, the record evidence fails

to meet the requisite standards of scienter to sustain a finding of liability in a private securities

fraud cause of action. See Memorandum of Law at 34-39.

Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 1866 Filed: 07/30/13 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:57868
3

4. Plaintiffs’ failure to prove a primary violation of § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 by any

Defendant renders Plaintiffs’ § 20(a) claims for controlling person liability against Aldinger and

Schoenholz subject to dismissal as a matter of law. See Memorandum of Law at 49. Moreover,

the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support the imposition of § 20(a) liability as to

the statements at issue. See Memorandum of Law at 49.

* * *

As more fully set forth in the Memorandum of Law incorporated herein, Defendants are,

in the alternative, entitled to a new trial pursuant to Rule 59 for numerous reasons, including:

1. The jury’s ad hoc, partial adoption of Plaintiffs’ leakage model resulted in an

irrational and unsupported verdict. See Memorandum of Law at 22-31. The Jury’s finding that a

March 23, 2001 statement concerning solely “predatory lending” introduced the leakage model’s

total sum of inflation into the stock price is legally impossible and foreclosed by the model itself,

see Memorandum of Law at 25-29, and resulted in a wholly unsupported, irrational verdict, see

Memorandum of Law at 29-31.

2. The jury instruction on the first element of Plaintiffs’ claim misstated the law on

this essential element, as the Supreme Court’s decision in Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First

Derivative Traders, 131 S. Ct. 2296 (2011), now unequivocally establishes. See Memorandum

of Law at 40-44. This instructional error requires a new trial as a matter of law. Id.

3. The jury was improperly instructed on the element of scienter as a consequence of

the Court’s sua sponte and erroneous insertion of a “knew or should have known” standard. See

Memorandum of Law at 44-46. This instructional error also requires a new trial as a matter of

law.

Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 1866 Filed: 07/30/13 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:57869
4

4. The verdict form contained fundamental errors of law, including (1) wrongly

excluding Arthur Andersen from the set of those potentially at “fault” for Plaintiffs’ losses,

thereby rendering the apportionment verdict legally defective, see Memorandum of Law at 47-

49; and (2) failing to require that § 20(a) liability be assessed with respect to specific statements

for which liability was found, thereby rendering the § 20(a) verdict legally deficient, unsupported

and irrational, see Memorandum of Law at 49-52.

5. The aggregate impact of erroneous evidentiary rulings resulted in an unfair trial.

See Memorandum of Law at 52-60. The Court erred in admitting prejudicial and unsupported

expert testimony, including that of Fischel, Ghiglieri, Cross, and Devor, see Memorandum of

Law at 52-57; and Plaintiffs misused hearsay evidence for improper substantive purposes and

improperly circumvented exclusion orders, see Memorandum of Law at 58-60. These

evidentiary errors require a new trial.

6. The Phase II proceedings deprived Defendants of the right to a proper

adjudication on the essential element of reliance. See Memorandum of Law at 61-65. The

limited discovery permitted as to certain claimants in Phase II demonstrated a lack of reliance,

see Memorandum of Law at 62-64; and the Phase II proceedings improperly constrained

Defendants from a full and fair opportunity to rebut the presumption of reliance, see

Memorandum of Law at 64-65.

For the foregoing reasons, and for those set forth more fully in the Memorandum of Law

incorporated herein, the Court should resolve all claims in Defendants’ favor and grant

Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. In the alternative, because the

jury’s verdict was irreconcilably inconsistent, numerous judicial errors individually and

Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 1866 Filed: 07/30/13 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:57870
5

cumulatively deprived Defendants of a fair trial, and a verdict for Plaintiffs was against the

weight of the evidence, the Court should grant Defendants’ Motion for a New Trial.

Dated: July 30, 2013

/s/ Paul D. Clement

Paul D. Clement

BANCROFT PLLC

1919 M. Street, NW

Washington, DC 20036

R. Ryan Stoll

Mark E. Rakoczy

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,

MEAGHER & FLOM

155 North Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60606

(312) 407-0700

Thomas J. Kavaler

Patricia Farren

Jason M. Hall

CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP

80 Pine Street

New York, NY 10005

(212) 701-3000

Attorneys for Defendants Household

International, Inc., William F. Aldinger,

David A. Schoenholz, and Gary Gilmer

Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 1866 Filed: 07/30/13 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:57871
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Paul D. Clement, an attorney, hereby certifies that on July 30, 2012, he caused true and

correct copies of the foregoing Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law

or, in the Alternative, a New Trial to be served via the Court’s ECF filing system on the

following counsel of record in this action:

Michael J. Dowd, Esq.

Daniel S. Drosman, Esq.

Spencer A. Burkholz, Esq.

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP

655 West Broadway, Suite 1900

San Diego, CA 92101

Marvin A. Miller, Esq.

Lori A. Fanning, Esq.

MILLER LAW LLC

115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2910

Chicago, IL 60603

/s/ Paul D. Clement

Paul D. Clement

Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 1866 Filed: 07/30/13 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:57872