EXHIBIT 2 

Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 2159-2 Filed: 05/06/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:84120
Page 1

· · · · ·IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

· · · · FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

· · · · · · · · · No. 1:02-CV-05893

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

LAWRENCE E. JAFFE PENSION PLAN, on behalf

of itself and all others similarly situated,

· · · · · · · · ·Plaintiffs,

·vs.

HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.,

· · · · · · · · · Defendants.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

· · · · · · · VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF

· · · · · · · FRANK ALLEN FERRELL, III

· · · ·Saturday, February 27, 2016 9:02 a.m.

· · · · · · · · · Skadden Arps LLP

· · · ·500 Boylston Street, Boston, MA 02116

Reported by:

Janet Sambataro, RMR, CRR, CLR

Job No. 10022056

Page 2

· · · · · · · · · · February 27, 2016

· · · · · · · · · · 9:02 a.m.

· · ·Videotaped deposition of FRANK ALLEN

FERRELL, III, held at the offices of Skadden Arps

LLP, 500 Boylston Street, Boston, Massachusetts,

pursuant to Agreement before Janet Sambataro, a

Registered Merit Reporter, Certified Realtime

Reporter, Certified LiveNote Reporter, and a

Notary Public within and for the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts.

Page 3

APPEARANCES:

ROBBINS, GELLER, RUDMAN & DOWD LLP

(By Luke O. Brooks, Esquire)

Post Montgomery Center

One Montgomery Street

San Francisco, California 94104

415.288.4534

lukeb@rgrdlaw.com

Counsel for the Plaintiffs

- and -

ROBBINS, GELLER, RUDMAN & DOWD LLP

(By Michael J. Dowd, Esquire)

655 W. Broadway

San Diego, California 92101

619.231.1058

miked@rgrdlaw.com

Counsel for the Plaintiffs

- Continued -

Page 4

APPEARANCES:· (Continued)

SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP

(By Patrick Fitzgerald, Esquire, and

Andrew J. Fuchs, Esquire)

155 N. Wacker Drive

Chicago, Illinois 60606

312.407.0700

patrick.fitzgerald@skadden.com

andrew.fuchs@skadden.com

Counsel for the Defendant, Household

International, Inc.

- and -

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY

(By Steven M. Farina, Esquire, and

Leslie Cooper Mahaffey, Esquire)

725 Twelfth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

202.434.5526

sfarina@wc.com

lmahaffey@wc.com

Counsel for the Defendant, Household International,

Inc.

Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 2159-2 Filed: 05/06/16 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:84121
Page 5

APPEARANCES:· (Continued)

MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY LLP

(By David S. Rosenbloom, Esquire) (Via Telephone)

227 West Monroe Street

Chicago, Illinois 60606-5096

312.372.2000

drosenbloom@mwe.com

Counsel for the Defendant, Gary Gilmer

KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP

(By Dawn M. Canty, Esquire)· (Via Telephone)

525 West Monroe Street

Chicago, IL 60661-3693.

312.902.5200

dawn.canty@kattenlaw.com

Counsel for the Defendant, William F. Aldinger

ALSO PRESENT:

Mark LoSacco, HSBC (Via Videoconference)

Shawn Budd, Videographer

Page 6

· · · · · · · · · ·I N D E X

WITNESS· · · · · · · · · · · DIRECT· · · ·CROSS

FRANK ALLEN FERRELL, III

By Mr. Brooks· · · · · · · · · · 10

By Mr. Fitzgerald· · · · · · · · · · · · · 304

· · · · · · · · E X H I B I T S

Number· · · · · Description· · · · · · · · · Page

Exhibit 1· Expert Report of Professor

· · · · · ·Allen Ferrell· · · · · · · · · · · ·11

Exhibit 2· Expert Rebuttal Report of

· · · · · ·Professor Allen Ferrell

· · · · · ·with exhibits· · · · · · · · · · · ·11

Exhibit 3· United States Court of Appeals

· · · · · ·for the Seventh Circuit Opinion,

· · · · · ·No. 13-3532· · · · · · · · · · · · ·68

Exhibit 4· Cumulative Residual Price Change

· · · · · ·on Fraud Related Event Dates

· · · · · ·Identified in Company Investor

· · · · · ·Relations Reports· · · · · · · · · 155

Exhibit 5· Report of Daniel R. Fischel,

· · · · · ·dated August 15, 2007· · · · · · · 165

Exhibit 6· Exhibits to Professor Fischel's

· · · · · ·August 15, 2007 report· · · · · · ·173

· · · · · ·- Continued -

Page 7

· · · · · · · · E X H I B I T S

Number· · · · · Description· · · · · · · · · Page

Exhibit 7· Cornell and Morgan article in

· · · · · ·the "UCLA Law Review"

· · · · · ·June 1990· · · · · · · · · · · · · 208

Exhibit 8· Article entitled "The Loss

· · · · · ·Causation Requirement for

· · · · · ·Rule 10b-5 Causes of Action:

· · · · · ·The Implications of Dura

· · · · · ·Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.

· · · · · ·Broudo"· · · · · · · · · · · · · · 215

Exhibit 9· Excerpt from Household

· · · · · ·International, Inc. Form 10-K

· · · · · ·for year ending

· · · · · ·December 31, 2001· · · · · · · · · 221

Exhibit 10 Sur-Rebuttal Report of

· · · · · ·Daniel R. Fischel· · · · · · · · · 232

Exhibit 11 CIBC World Markets Industry

· · · · · ·Update entitled "Specialty

· · · · · ·Finance - Third-Quarter 2002

· · · · · ·Preview"· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·240

Exhibit 12 A.G. Edwards report entitled

· · · · · ·"Specialty Finance Quarterly

· · · · · ·Fourth Quarter 2001"· · · · · · · ·249

· · · · · ·- Continued -

Page 8

· · · · · · · · E X H I B I T S

Number· · · · · Description· · · · · · · · · Page

Exhibit 13 Exhibit 2a, Exhibit 8a and 8B· · · 255

Exhibit 14 Second Rebuttal Report of

· · · · · ·Daniel R. Fischel· · · · · · · · · 260

· · · · · ·PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBITS

Number· · · · · Description· · · · · · · · · Page

Exhibit 820· Document Bates-stamped

· · · · · · ·HHS 03237027 through -7042· · · ·251

Exhibit 198· Document Bates-stamped

· · · · · · ·HHS 02075630 through -5650· · · ·277

Exhibit 199· Document Bates-stamped

· · · · · · ·HHS 02075738 through -5763· · · ·281

Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 2159-2 Filed: 05/06/16 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:84122
Page 33

the appellate order?

· · · · · MR. FITZGERALD:· Objection to form.· Go

ahead.

· · ·A.· ·I'm sorry.· So in the sense that I was

asked to assess the second supplemental report,

and my memory is Professor Fischel references the

appellate order in how he defines his scope in

the second supplemental report.

BY MR. BROOKS:

· · ·Q.· ·Did you read the appellate order?

· · ·A.· ·I did.

· · ·Q.· ·Did you read it carefully?

· · ·A.· ·Yes.

· · ·Q.· ·Do you believe that you adhered to the

Seventh Circuit's opinion in performing your

analysis?

· · ·A.· ·That calls for a legal opinion.· I'm

not going to offer a legal opinion.· All I can

say is this was the scope of my assignment, as

defined by counsel for Household.

· · ·Q.· ·What did you do to prepare for the

deposition today?

· · ·A.· ·I reviewed my reports.· I reviewed

Professor Fischel's reports.· I listened to

Professor Fischel's deposition.· I reviewed the

Page 34

surreply report.· I looked at underlying

documents, and I met with counsel.

· · ·Q.· ·When did you meet with counsel?

· · ·A.· ·So I met with counsel yesterday.· And I

met with counsel several times in person before

that, as well.

· · ·Q.· ·To prepare for the deposition?

· · ·A.· ·Correct.

· · ·Q.· ·How many times?

· · ·A.· ·So I met with counsel in Chicago a few

days ago.· I remember meeting with counsel -- I'm

just going to blank on the location, but I did

also, prior to Chicago, meet with counsel in

person, as well.· So that's three meetings.· So

there might be a fourth.· I just -- I don't have

a clear recollect --

· · ·Q.· ·How long --

· · ·A.· ·-- a clear recollection.

· · ·Q.· ·How long was the meeting before the

Chicago meeting?

· · ·A.· ·I want to say a day or a part of a day.

· · ·Q.· ·How about the meeting in Chicago?

· · ·A.· ·So I -- so that was two days, but just

to be clear, I met -- I believe it was two days.

I can be misremembering the exact length of time.

Page 35

I do remember meeting with counsel in Chicago for

a day and then the second day I was listening to

Professor Fischel.

· · ·Q.· ·So you met on Tuesday and listened to

Professor Fischel's deposition on Wednesday?

· · ·A.· ·Yes.· And now you reminded me. I

actually didn't meet the entire day.· I flew out

Tuesday morning.· So I actually -- now that I

remember, I got to Chicago midday on Tuesday.

And then you can remind -- my memory is that --

then that Professor Fischel was deposed the

following day, the Wednesday.

· · ·Q.· ·That's my memory too.

· · ·Was anyone at these meetings, other than

counsel for the defendants?

· · ·A.· ·Yes.

· · ·Q.· ·Who else was there?

· · ·A.· ·There was -- I don't know.· I'm not

exactly clear on how you define counsel for

defendants.· But counsel from HSBC was there as

well.

· · ·Q.· ·Anyone else?

· · ·A.· ·No.

· · ·Q.· ·How many lawyers were at these

meetings, approximately?

Page 36

· · ·A.· ·I mean, it varied.

· · ·Q.· ·What was the most?

· · ·A.· ·So counsel present here were at some of

the meetings, and the other person that comes to

mind is Ryan Stoll from Skadden Arps.

· · ·Q.· ·So five or six?

· · ·A.· ·Well, just to be clear, all five or six

were not present in every meeting.· So it was --

but those -- as well as counsel for HSBC.· But

I'm not saying they were all present for every

meeting.· That's not accurate.

· · ·Q.· ·Do you know Dr. Mukesh Bajaj?

· · ·A.· ·I do not.

· · ·Q.· ·Do you understand he was Household's

prior expert in this case on loss causation and

damages?

· · ·A.· ·I believe that's right.

· · ·Q.· ·You read his reports and transcripts,

right?

· · ·A.· ·I did.

· · ·Q.· ·So you know he was their expert, don't

you?

· · ·A.· ·Yes.· I was just pausing, because I

don't remember how he characterized who he was --

whether he was retained by counsel or by

Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 2159-2 Filed: 05/06/16 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:84123
Page 37

Household directly; but yes, he performed those

types of analysis.

· · ·Q.· ·So you read all of his reports.· Is

that right?

· · ·A.· ·Yes.

· · ·Q.· ·And you read his trial testimony.

Correct?

· · ·A.· ·I did.

· · ·Q.· ·You read his deposition testimony.

Correct?

· · ·A.· ·I did.

· · ·Q.· ·And was there anything that stood out

to you about his methodology that was incorrect,

in your opinion?

· · · · · MR. FITZGERALD:· Objection to scope

here.

· · ·A.· ·So you can look at Paragraph 14 in my

original report and Paragraph 7 of my second

report.· That was not within the scope of my

assignment.· So you can direct me to particular

portions of what he said, but it was something

that I did not focus on.

BY MR. BROOKS:

· · ·Q.· ·You read all his stuff.· Right?

· · ·A.· ·I did read it back in the summer, last

Page 38

year.· But again, assessing his work is outside

the scope of these two reports.

· · ·Q.· ·So I'm not asking you whether it was in

the scope of your reports.· I'm asking whether

there was anything you disagreed with from a

methodological perspective about Dr. Bajaj's

reports?

· · · · · MR. FITZGERALD:· I object.· Going down

the line of inquiry, if he's not retained to

analyze Dr. Bajaj's testimony, you have an

expert, asking him to do it on the fly doesn't

seem to me to be appropriate.

· · · · · MR. BROOKS:· Are you going to instruct

him not to answer?· I think I'm entitled to ask.

· · · · · MR. FITZGERALD:· You're asking him to

critique somebody he wasn't asked to critique

before on the fly, which I don't think is

appropriate.

· · · · · MR. BROOKS:· You can instruct him not

to answer.· I don't think it's proper.· But I

don't want to get in a big discussion with you.

· · · · · MR. FITZGERALD:· Why don't we move on

from this.· Let me talk to co-counsel at a break

as to what the understanding is, so we can

revisit it.· I just don't -- I just don't think

Page 39

you have a right to take an expert who is

testifying about a topic, then make your expert

analyze something else.· But why don't we talk

about it at a break, so I don't run the clock on

you?· You move on and we'll come back.

· · · · · MR. BROOKS:· I mean, he's testifying

about loss causation and damages.· That's what

Dr. Bajaj testified about.· Right?

· · · · · MR. FITZGERALD:· Right.

· · · · · MR. BROOKS:· It's the same topic.

BY MR. BROOKS:

· · ·Q.· ·In performing your work, did you

believe it was important to stay consistent with

Dr. Bajaj's prior opinions?

· · ·A.· ·No.· My understanding of my role is I

was to provide my own independent expert analysis

within the scope, as defined in Paragraph 7 of

my -- of my rebuttal report, and Paragraph 14 of

my original report.

· · ·Q.· ·You understand that Dr. Bajaj worked

with Cornerstone, just like you're working with

Cornerstone, don't you?

· · ·A.· ·That, I didn't know.

· · ·Q.· ·His deposition?

· · ·A.· ·You know, that could well be the case,

Page 40

but I don't have a recollection of that.

· · ·Q.· ·So you didn't think it was important to

stay consistent with Dr. Bajaj's opinions because

that wasn't the scope of your work.· Is that your

testimony?

· · · · · MR. FITZGERALD:· Objection to form.

You can answer.

· · ·A.· ·My -- my role, as I understand it, is

to provide my -- my own best independent analysis

within the scope of my assignment, as defined in

Paragraph 14 of my original report and

Paragraph 7 of my rebuttal report.

BY MR. BROOKS:

· · ·Q.· ·So whether or not you conflicted with

prior evidence that Household had put on at the

previous trial was not your concern?

· · · · · MR. FITZGERALD:· Objection --

BY MR. BROOKS:

· · ·Q.· ·Is that fair to say?

· · · · · MR. FITZGERALD:· -- to form.

· · ·A.· ·That's not fair to say.· I reviewed the

evidence and provided an independent analysis of

the evidence within the scope.· And the scope,

again, is to assess -- reading from my original

report, to assess Professor Fischel's second

Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 2159-2 Filed: 05/06/16 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:84124
Page 161

date that's not confounded with the caveat that

there's a November 9th disclosure.

BY MR. BROOKS:

· · ·Q.· ·If it was not fraud-related, it would

not be a specific disclosure date.· Right?

· · · · · MR. FITZGERALD:· Objection to form.

· · ·A.· ·So I'm assuming in the report that this

is corrective information, but -- but -- let me

put it this way:· In my report, this is not a

confounded day.· The issue that I raise with this

date is the November 9th.· And there's nothing

else I have to say about November 9th --

November 15th.

BY MR. BROOKS:

· · ·Q.· ·Why are you so reluctant to say whether

this is fraud-related information or not?

· · · · · MR. FITZGERALD:· Objection to form.

· · ·A.· ·Because I wasn't asked to opine on what

the fraud was.· I was -- I'm assuming the -- the

misrepresentations in the jury verdict, without

opining on it.· So that was my hesitation, is not

to be viewed as providing an opinion on what --

on what the fraud actually is, if there is any,

rather than just noting -- merely noting what's

on the jury verdict, without providing an opinion

Page 162

on that.

BY MR. BROOKS:

· · ·Q.· ·Do you agree that in order to determine

whether something is fraud-related or not, one

has to understand the fraud?

· · ·A.· ·I agree with that.

· · ·Q.· ·Skipping down to December 3rd, 2001,

this is an entry discussing "articles published

by "Barron's" and "Business Week" that alleged

Household's strong results were in part driven by

aggressive chargeoff policies."· Do you agree

that this is a fraud-related disclosure?

· · · · · MR. FITZGERALD:· What day are we on?

12/3/01?

· · · · · MR. BROOKS:· Yeah.

· · ·A.· ·You know --

· · · · · MR. FITZGERALD:· Thank you.

· · ·A.· ·-- I don't have the investor relations

report.· You know, I -- I feel uncomfortable

commenting on a sentence that's been cut and

pasted from a larger report without knowing the

context.· So I'm just not going to provide an

opinion on the investor relation report without

being given an opportunity to read the whole

thing, what the basis is for this in the report.

Page 163

· · ·I do talk about December 3rd in my report,

and I'll be happy to talk about what I do say

about December 3rd.

BY MR. BROOKS:

· · ·Q.· ·Well, yeah.· I mean, I'm asking you

about the disclosures, as summarized here.

Right?· So you understand that there were

disclosures on December 3rd, 2001, don't you?

· · ·A.· ·I have in my report a discussion of

December 3rd.· That's correct.

· · ·Q.· ·And a discussion of disclosures on

December 3rd?

· · ·A.· ·I believe so.

· · ·Q.· ·And were those --

· · ·A.· ·You know, hold on a second.· So there's

a lot of dates here.· I mean, I do have in my

Exhibit 3a, December 3rd.· So let me -- let me

restate my answer.

· · ·So I do have December 3rd in my Exhibit 3a.

And I just don't remember if I have a specific

discussion of that.· I have to -- let me flip

through my report.

· · ·I certainly reviewed Professor Fischel's

claimed disclosures on that date.· But I'm

flipping through my report to see, beyond my

Page 164

Exhibit 3a, if I have a discussion of that.· So

I'm looking at my initial report.

· · ·It looks like my first specific disclosure

date is December 12th.· And I'm looking at my

rebuttal.· And I'm looking at Page 32 of my

rebuttal.· Oh, so I do have December -- are we

talking about December 12?· So it's on page --

· · ·Q.· ·We're not talking about December 12.

· · ·A.· ·I'm sorry.· December 3rd.· So I won't

eat up any more time.· I'm just flipping through

it.· I can't readily find December 3rd, but I do

have, on Exhibit 3a, the statistical significance

on that date.· And I did review Professor

Fischel's discussion and citations on this date.

· · ·Q.· ·Did you review the "Barron's" and

"Business Week" articles?

· · ·A.· ·I believe so.

· · ·Q.· ·And --

· · ·A.· ·My memory is certainly the "Barron's"

is discussed in Fischel.· I reviewed a lot of

articles.· I -- I -- I probably reviewed it. I

certainly reviewed it if it's discussed in

Professor Fischel, but I certainly reviewed this

date.

· · · · · MR. FARINA:· The lunch is here if you

Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 2159-2 Filed: 05/06/16 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:84125
Page 165

guys want to break for lunch at a convenient

point.

· · · · · MR. BROOKS:· That's fine.

· · · · · THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· The time is 12:27.

Off the record.

· · · · · ·(Lunch recess was taken.)

· · · · · · ·(Report of Daniel R. Fischel,

· ·dated August 15, 2007 marked Exhibit 5.)

· · · · · THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Okay.· We are back

on the record.· The time is 1:16.

· · · · · MR. BROOKS:· So before we get started,

I told Steve off the record, these aren't exact

quotes.

· · · · · MR. FITZGERALD:· Okay.· Referring to

Exhibit --

· · · · · MR. BROOKS:· Exhibit 4.· So I was

mistaken.· There's -- quotes are exact, but then

there's some additional information.· I'm just

going to set it aside.

· · · · · MR. FITZGERALD:· Okay.· I appreciate

the correction.· Thank you.

BY MR. BROOKS:

· · ·Q.· ·Professor, do you understand the phrase

"headline risk"?

· · ·A.· ·I've seen it referenced in the initial

Page 166

reports.· So to that -- so I've seen it in that

context.

· · ·Q.· ·In that context, was headline risk

associated with predatory lending a material

reason for Household's stock price decline during

the leakage period?

· · · · · MR. FITZGERALD:· Objection to form.

· · ·A.· ·You'll have to point me to specific

documents.· Because I know that -- my memory is a

headline risk referred -- was referenced in

various documents at various points.· So I would

want to see what documents you have in mind in

answering that question.

BY MR. BROOKS:

· · ·Q.· ·Defendants' previous expert, Dr. Bajaj,

testified that Household's stock price declined

during the leakage period because of headline

risk.· Do you agree or disagree with that?

· · · · · MR. FITZGERALD:· Object to

characterizing his -- whether he agrees with

Bajaj or not.· But you can ask the underlying

question.

· · ·A.· ·I didn't focus on what Bajaj said or

the basis for what he said.· So I would have to

review what he said and why he said it.· I don't

Page 167

have an opinion on that.

· · · · · MR. BROOKS:· And are you continuing to

instruct him not to answer the questions about

Bajaj's methodologies?

· · · · · MR. FITZGERALD:· So -- yes.· So no.

Let me clarify where you are.· So you have

license to ask questions to a reasonable degree

about Bajaj as long as we understand he wasn't

engaged to review his methodology and the absence

of any criticism doesn't mean he's endorsing it.

And if he gives criticisms, it's not complete,

because he wasn't asked to do that.· But if you

want to ask him questions about what he recalls

about the methodology or specific questions, you

may.

BY MR. BROOKS:

· · ·Q.· ·You testified earlier that you read

Dr. Bajaj's reports and you read his trial and

deposition testimony.· Right?

· · ·A.· ·That's correct.

· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· And was there anything you

disagreed with, with respect to the methodology

that Dr. Bajaj applied in his analysis?

· · · · · MR. FITZGERALD:· I'll note the

continuing objection, but I'm not directing him

Page 168

not to answer.

· · ·A.· ·I mean, I read it over the summer to

get an understanding of the context of the case.

But, you know, I was not asked to review or

assess what he did or didn't do.· So if you have

a specific aspect of his methodology, you know,

it would be helpful for me to see it.· But it was

just something I wasn't focused on.

BY MR. BROOKS:

· · ·Q.· ·You indicated in your Exhibit B to your

report that you relied on Dr. Bajaj's reports and

testimony.· What did you rely on that for?

· · ·A.· ·To understand the context of the case.

So obviously there's been a lot of reports and

litigation well before I was retained, and so it

was for that purpose.

· · ·Q.· ·Was there any other reason that you

relied on Dr. Bajaj's reports and testimony?

· · ·A.· ·No.

· · ·Q.· ·And as you're sitting here, you can't

think of something that stood out to you as

methodologically unsound about Dr. Bajaj's

analysis?

· · · · · MR. FITZGERALD:· Continuing objection.

Not directing him -- I'm not preventing him from

Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 2159-2 Filed: 05/06/16 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:84126
Page 169

answering, but just noting the continuing

objection.

· · ·A.· ·You know, I read those reports last

summer, you know, in their entirety.· I would

need to see the reports to express an opinion.

BY MR. BROOKS:

· · ·Q.· ·So it's true that nothing stands out in

your mind as methodologically unsound about

Dr. Bajaj's analysis.· Right?

· · · · · MR. FITZGERALD:· Same continuing

objection.

· · ·A.· ·I don't have an opinion.· It's just

something -- you know, I read the reports a while

ago.· It was something I was not asked to assess.

So I would need to -- I'm not endorsing or not

endorsing anything that he did.· I would need to

look at it because it was outside my scope.

BY MR. BROOKS:

· · ·Q.· ·So there's nothing that you're thinking

of right now that was methodologically unsound.

Correct?

· · · · · MR. FITZGERALD:· Same objection.· And

asked and answered.

· · ·A.· ·I don't have a clear enough

recollection to have an opinion.

Page 170

BY MR. BROOKS:

· · ·Q.· ·Can you think of anything that he did,

as you're sitting here right now, that you

disagreed with from a methodological perspective?

· · · · · MR. FITZGERALD:· Same objections and

asked and answered.

· · ·A.· ·I have the same response.· I don't have

a clear enough recollection of the report to have

an opinion on it, sitting here today.· I was

asked to assess what Professor Fischel did.· And

on that, I have opinions.

BY MR. BROOKS:

· · ·Q.· ·Did you ever develop an opinion about

Dr. Bajaj's methodologies?

· · · · · MR. FITZGERALD:· Same objection.

· · ·A.· ·No.· Not -- not -- not -- the answer is

no, in the sense that I was asked to provide an

independent opinion and analysis of what

Professor Fischel said or what Professor Fischel

did.· And so that was my focus.

BY MR. BROOKS:

· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· You have Exhibit 5 in front of

you.· This is Professor Fischel's original report

dated August 15th, 2007.· Correct?

· · ·A.· ·August 15 -- yes.· That's correct.

Page 171

· · ·Q.· ·And you've reviewed this report.

Right?

· · ·A.· ·I have.

· · ·Q.· ·In fact, this report is one of the

things you're responding to.· Correct?

· · ·A.· ·Yes.· Because he incorporates by

reference this report in his later reports.· So

in that sense, the answer is yes.

· · ·Q.· ·So take a look at Paragraph 14 of

Professor Fischel's report.

· · ·A.· ·Okay.· Okay.

· · ·Q.· ·And just for the record, Exhibit 5

doesn't have the exhibits, but I have them

available if you need them, okay, Professor?

· · ·A.· ·You have the exhibits for?

· · ·Q.· ·For this report available, if you need

them.· They're voluminous, so --

· · ·A.· ·Thank you.

· · ·Q.· ·So you've directed your attention to

Paragraph 14 of Professor Fischel's report.

· · ·A.· ·Yes.

· · ·Q.· ·Is that correct?

· · ·A.· ·Yes.

· · ·Q.· ·Okay.

· · ·A.· ·Can you give me just a minute to read

Page 172

it?

· · ·Q.· ·Sure.

· · ·A.· ·I don't mean to interrupt.· Sorry.

· · ·Q.· ·Go ahead.

· · · · · · · (Witness complies.)

· · ·A.· ·I'm done reading it.

BY MR. BROOKS:

· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· So Paragraph 14 discusses a

February 18, 2002 National Mortgage News article.

Correct?

· · ·A.· ·Yes.

· · ·Q.· ·And that article is about -- withdrawn.

· · ·That article provides detail about a class

action lawsuit alleging that Household's

California subsidiaries tricked and trapped

customers into high-cost mortgages.· Do you see

that?

· · ·A.· ·I see those words.

· · ·Q.· ·Do you consider this article to be a

fraud-related disclosure?

· · ·A.· ·So if you're going to ask me to comment

on this article, I would like to see it and read

Exhibit 8.

· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Have you ever read Exhibit 8

before?

Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 2159-2 Filed: 05/06/16 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:84127