Upload
others
View
6
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Case3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document442 Filed03/04/10 Page1 of 17
1 DARRYL P. RAINS (CA SBN 104802)EUGENE ILLOVSKY (CA SBN 117892)
2 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
755 Page Mill Road3 Palo Alto, California 94304-1018
Telephone: 650.813.56004 Facsimile: 650.494.0792
Email: [email protected]
CRAIG D. MARTIN (CA SBN 168195)6 DOROTHY L. FERNANDEZ (CA SBN 184266)
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
7 425 Market StreetSan Francisco, California 94105-2482
8 Telephone: 415.268.7000Facsimile: 415.268.7522
9Attorneys for defendants The Charles Schwab Corporation,
10 Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., Charles Schwab InvestmentManagement, Inc., Schwab Investments, Charles R. Schwab,
11 Evelyn Dilsaver, Randall W. Merk, George Pereira, MatthewHastings, Mariann Byerwalter, Donald F. Dorward, William A.
12 Hasler, Robert G. Holmes, Gerald B. Smith, Donald R.Stephens, and Michael W. Wilsey
13
14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
17
18 IN RE CHARLES SCHWAB CORP. Master File No. C-08-01510-WHASECURITIES LITIGATION
19 CLASS ACTION
20 SCHWAB’S OPPOSITION TOMOTION TO EXCLUDE
21 CHRISTOPHER M. JAMES
22 Date: March 25, 2010Time: 8:00 a.m.
23 Judge: Hon. William H. Alsup
24
25
26
27
28
SCHWAB ’ S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE CHRISTOPHER M. JAMESMASTER FILE NO . C-08-01510-WHAdn-157498
Case3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document442 Filed03/04/10 Page2 of 17
1 STATEMENT OF ISSUES
2 (Local Rule 7-4)
3 Whether the Court should deny plaintiffs’ motion to exclude the expert testimony of
4 Professor James where his testimony is based on rigorous analysis of mountains of data regarding
5 price movements of the YieldPlus fund’s securities, using well-recognized methodologies and
6 accepted economic principles, and is relevant to show that the misrepresentations alleged by
7 plaintiffs did not cause the fund’s price declines?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SCHWAB ’ S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE CHRISTOPHER M. JAMES iMASTER FILE NO . C-08-01510-WHAdn-157498
Case3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document442 Filed03/04/10 Page3 of 17
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Page
3 STATEMENT OF ISSUES i
4 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iii
5 INTRODUCTION 1
6 ARGUMENT 2
7 I. PROFESSOR JAMES IS A QUALIFIED EXPERT ON LOSS CAUSATION. 2
8 II. PROFESSOR JAMES EMPLOYED THE CORRECT LEGAL STANDARDFOR NEGATIVE LOSS CAUSATION 3
9III. PLAINTIFFS’ ATTEMPTS TO DISCREDIT PROFESSOR JAMES ARE
10 MISLEADING. 4
11 IV. PROFESSOR JAMES APPLIED RELIABLE PRINCIPLES ANDMETHODOLOGIES. 5
12V. PLAINTIFFS’ RECYCLED ARGUMENTS ARE INAPPLICABLE HERE. 8
13VI. PROFESSOR JAMES’S TESTIMONY IS NOT CONTRADICTED BY THE
14 EVIDENCE 10
15 CONCLUSION 12
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SCHWAB ’ S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE CHRISTOPHER M. JAMES iiMASTER FILE NO . C-08-01510-WHAdn-157498
Case3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document442 Filed03/04/10 Page4 of 17
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2 Page(s)
3 CASES
4 California Fed. Bank v. United States,54 Fed. Cl. 704 (Ct. Fed. Cl. 2002) 4
5Clark v. Nevis Capital Mgmt., LLC,
6 No. 04 Civ. 2702, 2005 WL 488641 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2005) 9
7 Daubert v. Merrell DowPharm., Inc.,
8 509 U.S. 579 (1993) passim
9 Dorn v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe R.R. Co.,397 F.3d 1183 (9th Cir. 2005) 5, 8
10Dura Pharms., Inc. v. Broudo,
11 544 U.S. 336 (2005) 10, 11
12 In re Britannia Bulk Holdings Inc. Sec. Litig.,
13No. 08 Civ. 9554(DLC), 2009 WL 3353045 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2009) 4
14 In re Metropolitan Sec. Litig.,
2:04cv00025-FVS, slip op. (E.D. Wash. Feb. 18, 2010) 1015
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael,16 526 U.S. 137 (1999) 2, 5, 8
17 Maiz v. Virani,253 F.3d 641 (11th Cir. 2001) 8
18McKowan Lowe & Co. v. Jasmine,
19 No. Civ. 94-5522 (RBK), Civ. 96-2318 (RBK),
20 2005 WL 1541062 (D.N.J. June 30, 2005) 4
21 RMED Int’l, Inc. v. Sloan’s Supermarkets, Inc.,No. 94 Civ. 5587, 2000 WL 310352 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2000) 9
22Smith v. Pac Bell Tel. Co.,
23 649 F. Supp. 2d 1073 (E.D. Cal. 2009) 11
24 Sterling Savings Ass’n v. United States,
25 80 Fed. Cl. 497 (Ct. Fed. Cl. 2008) 4
26 Textron Inc. v. Barber-Colman Co.,903 F. Supp. 1546 (W.D.N.C. 1995) 11
27Ulico Casualty Co. v. Clover Capital Mgmt.,
28 217 F. Supp. 2d 311 (N.D.N.Y. 2002) 8
SCHWAB ’ S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE CHRISTOPHER M. JAMES iiiMASTER FILE NO . C-08-01510-WHAdn-157498
Case3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document442 Filed03/04/10 Page5 of 17
1 United States v. Diaz,
2CR 05-000167 WHA, 2006 WL 2699042 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2006) 5
3 United States v. Ferguson,
584 F. Supp. 2d 447 (D. Conn. 2008) 9
4United States v. Sandoval-Mendoza,
5 472 F.3d 645 (9th Cir. 2006) 4
6 Yu v. State Street Corp.,
7No. 08 Civ. 8235 (RJH), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17147 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2010) 11
8
9 STATUTES AND RULES
10 15 U.S.C.§ 77k(e) 3, 4
11 § 77l(b) 3
12 Fed. R. of Evid.
13Rule 702 2,11
14
15 OTHER AUTHORITIES
16 A. Craig MacKinlay, Event Studies in Economics and Finance,35 J. Econ. Lit. 13 (Mar. 1997) 9
17Jeffrey M. Netter, The Role of Financial Economics in Securities Fraud Cases,
18 49 Bus. Law. 545 (Feb. 1994) 9
19 Kent Daniel et al., Measuring Mutual Fund Performance with Characteristic-Based
20Benchmarks,52 J. Fin. 1035 (July 1997) 6
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SCHWAB ’ S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE CHRISTOPHER M. JAMES ivMASTER FILE NO . C-08-01510-WHAdn-157498
Case3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document442 Filed03/04/10 Page6 of 17
1 INTRODUCTION
2 The Court should deny plaintiffs’ motion to exclude Professor James’s testimony. Their
3 motion is riddled with unsupported generalities, irrelevant claims, and misleading arguments.
4 Christopher M. James is an eminently qualified professor of finance with special
5 expertise in loss causation. Professor James’s opinions that alleged misstatements did not cause
6 investors’ losses are based on principles and methodologies that are fully consistent with
7 Daubert. He did a rigorous analysis of market and fund data in ways accepted by courts and
8 other professionals. He used benchmarks and model portfolios to test the effect of the alleged
9 misrepresentations. And he applied his specialized knowledge of accepted financial and
10 economic principles in evaluating to what extent each alleged misrepresentation or omission
11 caused losses.
12 Plaintiffs say Professor James used the wrong “negative loss causation” legal standard.
13 But it is plaintiffs who have the law wrong. As we show in our opposition to plaintiffs’ motion
14 for summary judgment on negative loss causation, they apply the wrong legal standard while
15 Professor James applies the correct one. Schwab has no obligation — through Professor
16 James’s testimony or otherwise — to “affirmatively prove that other contemporaneous events
17 wholly unrelated to Plaintiffs’ allegations caused the decline,” as plaintiffs claim; Schwab need
18 show only that “any portion or all” of plaintiffs’ losses was not caused by an alleged
19 misstatement.
20 Plaintiffs make general assertions that Professor James’s testimony is “unsupported
21 speculation” and “totally devoid of technical analysis.” But they ignore Professor James’s
22 benchmark methodology and the extensive analysis of market and fund data that he does
23 throughout his reports to support his opinions. In fact, they don’t question the reliability of any
24 specific methodology he uses.
25 Finally, plaintiffs say Professor James “completely ignores” “critical record facts.” That
26 argument is wrong, but, in any event, goes only to the weight of Professor James’s opinions, not
27 their admissibility. Moreover, the evidence plaintiffs cite is irrelevant to loss causation. It is
28 unremarkable testimony confirming that the value of the fund’s securities, including its
SCHWAB ’ S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE CHRISTOPHER M. JAMES 1MASTER FILE NO . C-08-01510-WHAdn-157498
Case3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document442 Filed03/04/10 Page7 of 17
1 mortgage-backed securities, declined during the credit crisis. None of the testimony causally
2 links the losses to an alleged misrepresentation. In fact, witnesses testified that economic
3 circumstances changed dramatically in late 2007 and early 2008. Losses caused by changed
4 economic circumstances are not recoverable. The evidence plaintiffs cite shows that there was a
5 loss — a decline in the fund’s NAV because of the decline of the value of its holdings — but
6 does not show loss causation.
7 ARGUMENT
8 Federal Rule of Evidence 702 allows a witness “qualified as an expert by knowledge,
9 skill, experience, training, or education,” to testify in the form of an opinion. Fed. R. Evid. 702.
10 That expert opinion, to be admissible, must be reliable and relevant. Daubert v. Merrell Dow
11 Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993). The test of reliability is flexible, and depends on “the
12 nature of the issue, the expert’s particular expertise, and the subject of [the] testimony.” Kumho
13 Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 150 (1999). It focuses solely on principles and
14 methodology, and not on the conclusions generated. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595. The expert must
15 “employ[] in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of
16 an expert in the relevant field.” Kumho, 526 U.S. at 152. The relevance prong of Daubert asks
17 whether the testimony will “assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact
18 in issue.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 591.
19 Professor James has more than ample qualifications to testify on loss causation, his
20 methodologies are reliable, and his testimony is relevant.
21 I. PROFESSOR JAMES IS A QUALIFIED EXPERT ON LOSS CAUSATION.
22 Plaintiffs do not challenge Professor James’s qualifications to testify as an expert in the
23 area of loss causation. Nor could they: Professor James has a PhD in Finance from the
24 University of Michigan, and has more than thirty years of experience in the finance field,
25 lecturing on topics including loss causation under the securities laws. (Berman Decl. Exh. A
26 (James Report) at Exh. 1; Fernandez Decl. Exh. A (James Depo.) at 15:14–20.) He is currently
27 the William H. Dial/SunBank Eminent Scholar in Finance and Economics, and Professor of
28 Finance at the University of Florida. (Berman Decl. Exh. A at 1 . ) In addition to being a finance
SCHWAB ’ S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE CHRISTOPHER M. JAMES 2MASTER FILE NO . C-08-01510-WHAdn-157498
Case3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document442 Filed03/04/10 Page8 of 17
1 professor, he has held positions at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, the Federal
2 Deposit Insurance Corp., and the Treasury Department. He has authored nearly 70 publications,
3 addressing issues relating to corporate finance, interest rate management, mutual fund
4 performance and how information is incorporated into securities prices. ( Id. at 1 and Exh. 1.) 1
5 He has also served on the editorial boards of four scholarly journals, including the Journal of
6 Financial Economics. (Berman Decl. Exh. A at 1.) Professor James’s education, knowledge
7 and experience are more than sufficient to qualify him as an expert, and plaintiffs do not
8 contend otherwise. 2
9 II. PROFESSOR JAMES EMPLOYED THE CORRECT LEGAL STANDARDFOR NEGATIVE LOSS CAUSATION.
10
11 Plaintiffs assert that Professor James’s analysis is based on the wrong legal standard
12 because he analyzed “to what extent investor’s losses resulted from the alleged
13 misrepresentation.” (Open. Br. 4.) They say Professor James should have investigated what
14 other, “wholly unrelated” events caused the decline in value. ( Id. 3–4.) But it is plaintiffs, not
15 Professor James, who use the wrong legal standard. We show this in detail in our opposition to
16 plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on loss causation.
17 Both section 11 and section 12 allow Schwab to prove its negative causation defense by
18 showing “that any portion or all of” plaintiffs’ losses “represents other than” a decline in the
19 fund’s NAV “resulting from” a misrepresentation in a prospectus or registration statement.
20 15 U.S.C. §§ 77k(e), 77l(b). Under the plain and common-sense meaning of the statutory text, a
21 showing that plaintiffs’ loss could not have been caused by the alleged misrepresentations
22 necessarily proves that plaintiffs’ loss was caused by something “other than” those alleged
23 misrepresentations.
24 1 Particularly relevant here, Professor James has authored peer reviewed papers on
25 (i) pricing and performance of mortgage-backed securities; (ii) how portfolio holdings impactreturns; and (iii) academic tools used in evaluating loss causation. (Fernandez Decl. Exh. A at
26 12:6–22, 13:10–11, 15:9–12.)
27 2 Plaintiffs do not challenge Professor James’s opinions on damages on any ground.(Open. Br. 1, n.1.)
28
SCHWAB ’ S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE CHRISTOPHER M. JAMES 3MASTER FILE NO. C-08-01510-WHAdn-157498
Case3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document442 Filed03/04/10 Page9 of 17
1 Likewise, the cases say that “once a defendant shows that the alleged misrepresentation
2 was not the cause of the plaintiffs’ losses, its burden is met” and the defendant does not need to
3 show “what other factors” caused the loss. See, e.g., McKowan Lowe & Co. v. Jasmine, No.
4 Civ. 94-5522 (RBK), Civ. 96-2318 (RBK), 2005 WL 1541062, at *12 n.12 (D.N.J. June 30,
5 2005); accord In re Britannia Bulk Holdings Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 08 Civ. 9554(DLC), 2009 WL
6 3353045, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2009) (defendants may sustain a negative causation defense
7 “by proving that the allegedly misleading misrepresentations did not cause the depreciation in
8 the stock’s value”).
9 Accordingly, Professor James’s analysis properly considered “to what extent investor’s
10 losses resulted from the alleged misstatements.” (Berman Decl. Exh. A at 6–7.) 3 Because
11 Schwab may establish its affirmative defense to claims under sections 11 and 12(a)(2) by
12 showing that “any portion” of plaintiffs’ losses was caused by anything other than the
13 misstatement or omission, see 15 U.S.C. §§ 77k(e), 77l(b), Professor James’s testimony is
14 relevant and helpful to the trier of fact. See, e.g., United States v. Sandoval-Mendoza, 472 F.3d
15 645, 654 (9th Cir. 2006) (expert testimony relevant where underlying knowledge has “valid . . .
16 connection to the pertinent inquiry”).
17 III. PLAINTIFFS’ ATTEMPTS TO DISCREDIT PROFESSOR JAMES AREMISLEADING.
18
19 Plaintiffs say two other courts considered Professor James’s expert testimony and
20 “refused to allow it to be presented to a jury.” (Open. Br. 7.) They are misleading this Court in
21 an effort to discredit Professor James. The two cases plaintiffs cite were bench trials — neither
22 case involved a Daubert challenge, and it is simply false to say those courts refused to allow his
23 testimony to go “to a jury.” See California Fed. Bank v. United States, 54 Fed. Cl. 704 (Ct. Fed.
24 Cl. 2002); Sterling Savings Ass’n v. United States, 80 Fed. Cl. 497 (Ct. Fed. Cl. 2008). The
25
26 3 By contrast, plaintiffs’ experts, Candace Preston and Gifford Fong, made no attempt tocausally link the depreciation in the value of YieldPlus shares to the alleged misrepresentations.
27 (See Fernandez Decl. Exh. B (James Rebuttal Report) at 6.) Schwab intends to move to excludethose, and other, opinions under Daubert.
28
SCHWAB ’ S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE CHRISTOPHER M. JAMES 4MASTER FILE NO. C-08-01510-WHAdn-157498
Case3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document442 Filed03/04/10 Page10 of 17
1 Court of Federal Claims doesn’t have jury trials. And it is highly disingenuous for plaintiffs to
2 cite these cases in their Daubert motion without mentioning the entirely different standard that
3 applies to a judge’s weighing of competing experts’ testimony when sitting as the trier of fact.
4 See Dorn v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe R.R. Co., 397 F.3d 1183, 1196 (9th Cir. 2005)
5 (“authority to determine the victor in ... a battle of expert witnesses” rests with trier of fact).
6 IV. PROFESSOR JAMES APPLIED RELIABLE PRINCIPLES ANDMETHODOLOGIES.
7
8 Plaintiffs do not challenge the reliability of any specific methodology; they instead make
9 generalized objections that Professor James’s testimony is “unscientific,” “unsupported
10 speculation” and “totally devoid of . . . technical analysis.” (Open. Br. 4, 7–8.) 4 Plaintiffs
11 ignore the mountains of data and detailed analyses that Professor James uses, which more than
12 adequately reflect the “intellectual rigor that characterizes the practices of an expert” in his field.
13 Professor James’s expert report identified eleven categories of alleged
14 misrepresentations from plaintiffs’ complaint. In stating each of his conclusions, Professor
15 James considered models, benchmarks, and/or other objective data — and applied his
16 specialized knowledge concerning financial principles and how mutual fund prices are
17 calculated — to explain why each alleged misrepresentation was not the cause of YieldPlus’s
18 losses. In each instance, Professor James’s methodologies are clearly explained.
19 For example, Professor James concluded that the depreciation in the value of YieldPlus
20 shares did not result from the alleged misstatements of material fact regarding interest rate risk,
21 because interest rates actually declined during the relevant period. (Berman Decl. Exh. A at 12.)
22 Far from “unsupported speculation,” this conclusion is based on:
23 • Rigorous analysis of data from the U.S. Treasury Department showing that
24interest rates for all horizons declined during the entire relevant period,
25 4 Plaintiffs also reflexively repeat Daubert’s illustrative list of factors (Open. Br. 7),ignoring the flexible nature of Daubert’s inquiry, and Kumho’s instruction that the Daubert
26 factors may or may not be pertinent in assessing reliability. Kumho, 526 U.S. at 151. Factorssuch as potential error rate are not always applicable to particular expert testimony, and
27 reliability may depend heavily on the knowledge and experience of the expert. United States v.Diaz, No. CR 05-000167 WHA, 2006 WL 2699042, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2006).
28
SCHWAB ’ S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE CHRISTOPHER M. JAMES 5MASTER FILE NO. C-08-01510-WHAdn-157498
Case3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document442 Filed03/04/10 Page11 of 17
1 including between July 31, 2007, and March 18, 2008, the period whenYieldPlus experienced most of its losses ( id. at 13 and Exhs. 5.1 and 5.2);
2• Professor James’s experience-based knowledge that “[i]nvestors in bonds or
3 other fixed income securities can experience losses if interest rates increasebecause the prices of these securities tend to fall in rising interest rate
4 environments” ( id. at 12); and
5 • Professor James’s examination of the performance of indices of governmentbonds and agency mortgage-backed securities from 2006 to 2008 (these
6 securities are exposed to interest rate risk without significant exposure to creditrisk), showing that when interest rates went down, prices went up (and prices of
7 higher duration bonds went up by more than lower duration bonds) ( id. at 13–14and Exhs. 6.1 and 6.2).
8
9 Indeed, plaintiffs’ expert, H. Gifford Fong, agreed with the fundamental financial principles
10 upon which Professor James relies. (Fernandez Decl. Exh. C (Fong Depo.) at 98:13–99:19
11 (nominal interest rates declined in 2007 and 2008; bond prices usually rise as interest rates
12 fall)). Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude Professor James’s testimony offers no explanation as to why
13 his principles and methodology are unreliable.
14 Likewise, Professor James’s opinion that the depreciation in the value of YieldPlus
15 shares did not result from the fund’s allegedly excessive allocation to non-agency mortgage-
16 backed securities is based on objective data and accepted methodology. (Berman Decl. Exh. A
17 at 25.) Specifically, Professor James compared the fund’s performance to several benchmarks.
18 This is a well-recognized method of analysis by academics studying mutual funds. See, e.g.,
19 Kent Daniel et al., Measuring Mutual Fund Performance with Characteristic-Based
20 Benchmarks, 52 J. Fin. 1035, 1040, 1043 (July 1997). Professor James constructed his
21 benchmarks using a massive amount of data about the fund, including over 205,000
22 observations of daily price movements of the fund’s securities. (Berman Decl. Ex. A at 38–39.)
23 He used this data to map out the market value-weighted average of the returns of the hundreds
24 of individual securities that the fund owned. ( Id. at 39.) His methodology then proportionately
25 reallocated some of the fund’s investments in non-agency mortgage-backed securities to other
26 assets held by the fund, while setting investments in non-agency mortgage-backed securities at
27 various thresholds — e.g., 25%, 20%, 15%, 10% and 5% of total assets. (Id. at 38–39.) He then
28 compared the performance of the actual portfolio to each of these benchmarks. ( Id. at 25 &
SCHWAB ’ S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE CHRISTOPHER M. JAMES 6MASTER FILE NO . C-08-01510-WHAdn-157498
Case3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document442 Filed03/04/10 Page12 of 17
1 Exh. 12.) Professor James’s rigorous, empirical analysis showed that YieldPlus performed
2 comparably to or slightly better than each of the benchmarks that had a lower allocation to non-
3 agency mortgage-backed securities. (Id.)
4 Professor James used a similar methodology to test whether an alleged excess of illiquid
5 securities caused plaintiffs’ losses. He examined the securities that plaintiffs’ complaint alleges
6 were illiquid (non-agency mortgage-backed securities and asset-backed securities that are
7 “home equity loans”). (Sec. Am. Compl. [Dkt. No. 250] ¶¶ 92–97.) His methodology then
8 reallocated some of the fund’s investments in those securities to other assets held by the fund,
9 while setting investments in the allegedly illiquid securities at various thresholds — e.g., 15%,
10 10% and 5% of total assets. (Berman Decl. Exh. A at 28.) Professor James’s rigorous,
11 empirical analysis showed that YieldPlus performed comparably to or slightly better than each
12 of the benchmarks with a lower allocation to allegedly illiquid securities. ( Id. at 28 and
13 Exhs. 13 and 14.)
14 Appendices to Professor James’s report detail at length the data and methodology used
15 in constructing the benchmarks created to compare YieldPlus’s actual performance to what its
16 performance would have been with alternative portfolio weightings. (Id. at 38.) Specifically,
17 Professor James obtained daily reports on the assets of the YieldPlus fund, including asset ID,
18 sector classification, price, par amount, and market value and a list of each purchase or sale of
19 assets by the fund. (Id. at 38–39.) Professor James used this data and his financial expertise to
20 calculate the market value-weighted average return on individual assets in the fund. ( Id.) He
21 next calculated the market value-weighted average price return of two groups of assets: non-
22 agency mortgage-backed securities and “other assets.” (Id. at 40.) By capping the weight of the
23 mortgage-backed securities in the portfolio at certain targets — and reallocating any excess
24 weight beyond the target to the “other assets” portion of the portfolio — Professor James was
25 able to test the effect of the fund’s allegedly excessive allocation to mortgage-backed securities.
26 (Id.) For example, if the target weight of the mortgage-backed securities in the portfolio is
27 25 percent of total assets, and the actual weight was 27 percent in a particular period, then
28 Professor James would reduce the mortgage-backed securities weight to 25 percent, and
SCHWAB ’ S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE CHRISTOPHER M. JAMES 7MASTER FILE NO . C-08-01510-WHAdn-157498
Case3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document442 Filed03/04/10 Page13 of 17
1 increase the weight of the “other assets” portion of the portfolio from 73 percent to 75 percent.
2 (Id.)
3 Plaintiffs do not mention Professor James’s methodology, nor do they offer any specific
4 argument as to why his rigorous benchmark methodology is unreliable. Plaintiffs’ expert, in
5 fact, used a similar benchmark methodology in an opposition report. (Fernandez Decl. Exh. D
6 (Fong Opp. Report) § 2.7) (using modified version of Professor James’s benchmark
7 methodology with different assumptions). 5 And, in a variety of different contexts, courts
8 frequently admit expert testimony based on similar benchmark methodologies. See, e.g.,
9 Maiz v. Virani, 253 F.3d 641, 664–66 (11th Cir. 2001) (affirming admission of expert testimony
10 using comparative benchmark for gauging lost profits).
11 At bottom, Professor James’s opinions — which are based on objective facts, his
12 expertise, and explained principles and methodologies — are more than sufficient to satisfy
13 Daubert. See Ulico Casualty Co. v. Clover Capital Mgmt., 217 F. Supp. 2d 311, 317 (N.D.N.Y.
14 2002) (expert testimony reliable where it has a “traceable, analytical basis in objective fact”);
15 see generally Kumho, 526 U.S. at 156 (“no one denies that an expert might draw a conclusion
16 from a set of observations based on extensive and specialized experience”).
17 V. PLAINTIFFS’ RECYCLED ARGUMENTS ARE INAPPLICABLE HERE.
18 Plaintiffs recycle two arguments from a filing their counsel made in an unrelated case —
19 apparently without evaluating their applicability to Professor James’s report here. First,
20 plaintiffs state, “Professor James elected to simply look at a very minimal and obviously biased
21 set of events over a few days, provide a general storytelling, unscientific approach and call it
22 good.” (Open. Br. 7.) This argument is nonsensical here, as even a cursory review of his report
23 shows it is not based on a “set of events over a few days.” For example, Professor James’s
24 benchmarks and supporting exhibits show he analyzed the prices of every security that the fund
25
26 5 To the extent that plaintiffs’ expert disagreed with Professor James’s assumptions inconstructing the benchmark, such a challenge goes to weight, not admissibility. Dorn, 397 F.3d
27 at 1196 (reasonableness of assumptions underlying expert analysis and criticisms of expert’smethod of calculation are matters for jury’s consideration in weighing evidence).
28
SCHWAB ’ S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE CHRISTOPHER M. JAMES 8MASTER FILE NO. C-08-01510-WHAdn-157498
Case3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document442 Filed03/04/10 Page14 of 17
1 owned (along with several other important variables) on every day in the entire class period.
2 (See Berman Decl. Exh. A, Exhs. 5.1, 6.1, 11, 12, 13, and 14.)
3 Second, plaintiffs assert that Professor James’s report is unreliable because it does not
4 include an event study. (Open. Br. 7.) They are wrong, for the simple reason that “[e]vent
5 study methodology has its foundation in the efficient market hypothesis.” Jeffrey M. Netter,
6 The Role of Financial Economics in Securities Fraud Cases, 49 Bus. Law. 545, 557 (Feb.
7 1994); A. Craig MacKinlay, Event Studies in Economics and Finance, 35 J. Econ. Lit. 13, 13
8 (Mar. 1997) (event study useful where effects of event “will be reflected immediately in security
9 prices”). Specifically, “[a]n event study is an examination of the association between news
10 about a company (good, bad, neutral) and stock price movements. The researcher is examining
11 whether the association between news and share price movements is strong enough to support
12 an inference of, among other things, causation . . . .” United States v. Ferguson, 584 F. Supp. 2d
13 447, 449 n.3 (D. Conn. 2008) (citation omitted).
14 But this is not a public market case that involves a security whose value fluctuates based
15 on news about the issuer of the security. As Professor James explains in his report, and as we
16 explain in our motion for summary judgment on loss causation, the NAV of mutual funds does
17 not respond to news about the fund itself. (Berman Decl. Exh. A at 9.) See Clark v. Nevis
18 Capital Mgmt., LLC, No. 04 Civ. 2702, 2005 WL 488641, at *18 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2005) (price
19 of a mutual fund is not affected by alleged misrepresentations and omissions concerning fund
20 itself). Schwab is not aware of a single ‘33 Act case involving a mutual fund in which an event
21 study was used, and plaintiffs do not cite even one.
22 Moreover, plaintiffs don’t identify any “events” in their complaint (e.g., alleged
23 corrective disclosures), from which to conduct an event study. Courts recognize that an event
24 study is not practical in all circumstances. See, e.g., RMED Int’l, Inc. v. Sloan’s Supermarkets,
25 Inc., No. 94 Civ. 5587, 2000 WL 310352, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2000) (event study may not
26 be practical where there is no control period or where the “alleged misrepresentations and
27 omissions were not revealed to the market in a single clean announcement”). Neither of
28
SCHWAB ’ S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE CHRISTOPHER M. JAMES 9MASTER FILE NO . C-08-01510-WHAdn-157498
Case3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document442 Filed03/04/10 Page15 of 17
1 plaintiffs’ experts, Gifford Fong and Candace Preston, performed an event study. 6
2 Plaintiffs will likely rely on In re Metropolitan Securities Litigation, 2:04cv00025-FVS, slip op.
3 (E.D. Wash. Feb. 18, 2010), in which the court excluded a portion of Professor James’s testimony
4 for failure to conduct an event study. But that case (i) did not involve a mutual fund; and
5 (ii) involved testimony about five specific events that caused the decline in the value of the
6 securities. Because this case involves a mutual fund, and does not involve specific, identifiable
7 events, the In re Metropolitan Securities Litigation decision is irrelevant. Notably, this unique
8 decision is the only time any part of Professor James’s testimony has ever been excluded under
9 Daubert. (See Fernandez Decl. Exh. A at 19:11–16.) We are informed that, during his 25 years
10 as a testifying expert, parties in well over 50 cases have sought to exclude Professor James
11 without success.
12 VI. PROFESSOR JAMES’S TESTIMONY IS NOT CONTRADICTED BY THEEVIDENCE.
13
14 Finally, plaintiffs accuse Professor James of “completely ignor[ing]” “critical record
15 facts” that “flatly contradict[]” his opinions. (Open. Br. 5.) They are wrong — and they do not
16 point to one “record fact” that contradicts Professor James’s loss causation opinion. In their
17 motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs cite only unremarkable testimony confirming that the
18 value of the fund’s securities, including its mortgage-backed securities, declined. (Dkt. No. 418
19 at 6–10.) As explained in our opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on loss
20 causation, none of the testimony causally links the losses to an alleged misrepresentation back in
21 2006. In fact, witnesses testified that economic circumstances changed dramatically in late
22 2007 and early 2008. Losses caused by changed economic circumstances are not recoverable.
23 Dura Pharms., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 342–43 (2005). The evidence plaintiffs cite shows
24 that there was a loss — a decline in the fund’s NAV because of the decline of the value of its
25 holdings. But it does not show loss causation — that is, a showing that the fund’s NAV decline
26
27 6 Ms. Preston did a make-weight regression, which adds nothing to her analysis and willbe a subject of Schwab’s anticipated Daubert motion.
28
SCHWAB ’ S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE CHRISTOPHER M. JAMES 10MASTER FILE NO. C-08-01510-WHAdn-157498
Case3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document442 Filed03/04/10 Page16 of 17
1 happened because of a misrepresentation. Id. at 345 (securities laws not meant “to provide
2 investors with broad insurance against market losses, but to protect them against economic
3 losses that misrepresentations actually cause”). As one court recently put it, in dismissing
4 section 11 and section 12 claims arising from another ultra-short bond fund’s investments in
5 mortgage-backed securities, “[a] backward looking assessment of the infirmities of mortgage-
6 related securities . . . cannot help plaintiffs’ case.” Yu v. State Street Corp., No. 08 Civ. 8235
7 (RJH), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17147, at *22 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2010).
8 Professor James’s report carefully discusses each of the alleged misrepresentations and
9 explains why depreciation in the value of the fund did not result from the alleged
10 misrepresentations. As discussed throughout, Professor James’s opinions are based on a
11 massive amount of objective data, including over 205,000 observations of daily price
12 movements of the fund’s securities, along with a close analysis of the Second Amended
13 Complaint’s allegations and Schwab’s disclosures in SEC filings. (Berman Decl. Ex. A at 10–
14 11 and Exh. 3.) Plaintiffs do not — and cannot — explain how testimony that the value of the
15 fund’s securities declined undermines the reliability of Professor James’s principles and
16 methodology.
17 In any event, a district court’s gatekeeper role under Daubert should not displace the
18 adversary system and role of the jury. “Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary
19 evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate
20 means of attacking” admissible expert testimony. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596. Where, as here,
21 Professor James’s testimony is based on mountains of data and detailed analysis, and is reliable
22 and relevant, plaintiffs’ allegations of “contradictory” facts goes to weight, not admissibility. 7
23
24
25 7 The cases plaintiffs cite are irrelevant. See, e.g., Smith v. Pac Bell Tel. Co., 649 F.Supp. 2d 1073, 1097 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (expert had no evidence to support his alternative
26 timeline); Textron Inc. v. Barber-Colman Co., 903 F. Supp. 1546, 1556 (W.D.N.C. 1995)(expert witness speculated about possible hazardous wastes present at facility in 1975 and 1976
27 from scant evidence years earlier and general practices in the industry, rather than any scientificmethodology).
28
SCHWAB ’ S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE CHRISTOPHER M. JAMES 1 1MASTER FILE NO. C-08-01510-WHAdn-157498
Case3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document442 Filed03/04/10 Page17 of 17
1 CONCLUSION
2 Professor James’s testimony is admissible under rule 702 because it is both relevant and,
3 since it is based on rigorous empirical analysis, reliable. Plaintiffs’ general, unsupported
4 assertions show nothing to the contrary. The Court should deny plaintiffs’ motion. In the event
5 the Court has any questions regarding Professor James’s methodologies, Schwab respectfully
6 requests a Daubert hearing on this motion.
7
8 Dated: March 4, 2010 DARRYL P. RAINSEUGENE ILLOVSKY
9 CRAIG D. MARTINDOROTHY L. FERNANDEZ
10 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
11 By: /s/ Darryl P. Rains Darryl P. Rains
12Attorneys for defendants The Charles
13 Schwab Corporation, Charles Schwab &Co., Inc., Charles Schwab Investment
14 Management, Inc., Schwab Investments,Charles R. Schwab, Evelyn Dilsaver,
15 Randall W. Merk, George Pereira,Matthew Hastings, Mariann Byerwalter,
16 Donald F. Dorward, William A. Hasler,Robert G. Holmes, Gerald B. Smith,
17 Donald R. Stephens, andMichael W. Wilsey
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SCHWAB ’ S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE CHRISTOPHER M. JAMES 12MASTER FILE NO . C-08-01510-WHAdn-157498
Case3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document442-1 Filed03/04/10 Page1 of 2
1 DARRYL P. RAINS (CA SBN 104802)EUGENE ILLOVSKY (CA SBN 117892)
2 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
755 Page Mill Road3 Palo Alto, California 94304-1018
Telephone: 650.813.56004 Facsimile: 650.494.0792
Email: [email protected]
CRAIG D. MARTIN (CA SBN 168195)6 DOROTHY L. FERNANDEZ (CA SBN 184266)
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
7 425 Market StreetSan Francisco, California 94105-2482
8 Telephone: 415.268.7000Facsimile: 415.268.7522
9
10 Attorneys for defendants The Charles Schwab Corporation,Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., Charles Schwab Investment
11 Management, Inc., Schwab Investments, Charles R. Schwab,Evelyn Dilsaver, Randall W. Merk, George Pereira, Matthew
12 Hastings, Mariann Byerwalter, Donald F. Dorward, William A.Hasler, Robert G. Holmes, Gerald B. Smith, Donald R.
13 Stephens, and Michael W. Wilsey
14
15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
18
19 IN RE CHARLES SCHWAB CORP. Master File No. C-08-01510-WHASECURITIES LITIGATION
20 CLASS ACTION
21[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
22 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDEDEFENDANTS’ EXPERT
23 CHRISTOPHER M. JAMES
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT CHRISTOPHER M. JAMESMASTER FILE NO .: C-08-01510-WHAsf-2811150
Case3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document442-1 Filed03/04/10 Page2 of 2
1 Plaintiffs moved the Court for an order excluding defendants’ expert, Christopher M.
2 James, from testifying pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Local Rule 7-2. Defendants
3 opposed plaintiffs’ motion.
4 The matter came for hearing on March 25, 2010 at 8:00 a.m. Having considered all the
5 papers filed by the parties in connection with plaintiffs’ motion to exclude testimony from
6 defendants’ expert Christopher M. James, the parties’ arguments at the hearing on this matter, and
7 other materials of which the Court may properly take judicial notice, the Court hereby DENIES
8 plaintiffs’ motion to exclude the testimony of Christopher M. James.
9 IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
11Dated: , 2010
12HON. WILLIAM H. ALSUP
13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT CHRISTOPHER M. JAMES 1MASTER FILE NO .: C-08-01510-WHAsf-2811150