Free Motion in Limine - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 816-7
6-

Filed 06/01/2004

Page 1 of 14

-.i

Alternative Acceptance Rates
13.
Article IV.

b of the contract provides that " beginning not later than July

1987, DOE shall issue an annual capacity report for planning purposes. . .. (setting) forth the
projected annual receiving capacity for the DOE facility(ies) . . . . "
Article IV.

a of the contract

provides that "beginning on April 1 , 1991, DOE shall issue . an annual a cceptance priority ~nking
for receipt of SNF and/or HLW at the DOE repository.

II Pursuant to these requirements DOE

published both an acceptance priority ranking. ("APRil ) and aft annual capacity report ("ACR" ) in

1991. "fhe 1991 ACR projected waste acceptance rates for SNF of 400 MTU in 1998 , 600 MTU
in 19~9 ~nd 900 MTU in each year from 20~Q though 2007, for a 1p-year total of 8, 200 MTU.

1991 Annual Capacity Report , Table 2. 1 (B~tes No. HQOO02365). ll:1is acceptance schedule

also isco.nsistent with DOE accepting no more than 10 000 MTU prior to 2910.
No. HQOO02364). 4

, at 4 (Bates

14.

The 1~91 ACRapplied the waste acceptance rates to the 1991 APR
priority.

resulting in individual Purchaser allocations b~sed on an oldest fuel first (" OF~)
1991 , Annual

See

Capacity Report, Table 3. 1 (Bates No. HQOO02369). Even with the acceptance

scheq~le plaintiff's experts assume, an OFF priority allocation would not atlbwCon,:,ecticut
Yank~e to dispose of all of its nuclear waste before 2010. See

Exhibit C.

Becausethe

acceptance rate projected- in the 1991 AGR is lower, an OFF priority allocation using this

acceptance rate also would not allow ContiE!cticut Yankee to di~pose ofits nuclear waste before

2010.5 Moreover, even if the exchange market functioned to minimize aggregate storage costs

continued)

4. I understand that the 1987 amendments to the NWPA authorized DOE to site , construct and
operate a single Monitored Retrievable Storage (" MRS" ) facility, and provided thaflio more than 10 000 MTU of nuclear waste could be stored at the MRS facility until a permanent repository began to operate. I also understand that DOE had announced prior to issuance of the 1991 ACR that it did not anticipate that the permanent repository would began

potential accidental discharges of radioactive material.

operating until at least 2010.
051

5. With an

OFF priority, Connecticut Yankee s allocation would total 215. 1 MTU through 2007. Mr. Graves ' data show that Connecticut Yankee has an SNF inventory of449. 11 MTU.

'.

, "
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 816-7

" p.

:'!~

Filed 06/01/2004

Page 2 of 14

- 7' Mr.' ~~~eshas:assumed , plaintiff would continue to store fuel through 2010 under the

acceptance rates projected in the 1991 ACR because , according to Mr. Graves

' calculations, the'

amount of "Must-Move " fuel generated by disCharges from operating reactors (i.

e., discharges in

excess of spent fuel pool capacity) exceeds 10 000 MTU by 2010. See Graves Report, Figure

t ' Therefore, if the 1991 ACR aCCeptance rate had been achieved , plaintiff would not avoidthe
additional " storage costs on which its damage claim is prediCated.

Assumptions about Exchanges
15.
Article V. E " of

the cOntract provides Purchasers with the " right to exChange

approved delivery commitment schedules :wittl parties to other contracts with DOE for;
of SNF and/or HLW;

disposal ,

provided however, tIlat DOE shall, in advance , have the right to approve or

, disapprove , in its sole discretion , any such' exchanges. " Plaintiff's damage claim "

asslime(s)

that such swaps would approach the' efficient economic allocation of slots

e., the allocation of

slots which minimized the aggregate on-site storage costs ofallpurchasers). Graves Report , at
13~ Mr. Graves' conclusion that all of Connecticut Yankee s SNF and HlW would have been

removed by 2001 in the " Non- Breach World" d~pends on this assumption. However,

tf1is

assumption is both speculative (because there is no way to know with certainty how thEfmarket
would function) and implausible for several reasons.
16.
exchanged under the contract.

First, only approved delivery commitment schedules (" DCSs ) Can be

See Article

V. E.

Moreover, under the contract, DOE is only

req uired to project receiving capacity for 10 years following the projected commencement of
operation of the initial DOE facility, and utilities are not required to submit DCSs for the full 10
years.

See Article

IV.

and Article V

1. Purchasers could not exchange allocations that

had not been projected , requested , and approved.

6. To minimize aggregate storage

built.

cOsts under plaintiff' s model, " Must- Move " fuel generated by discharges from operating reactors in excess of spent fuel be moved first , because if this fuel is not moved , an additionalpOol capacity would have toto be storage facility would have

,r

052

, ,

,"

,"

" ,

,'

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 816-7

Filed 06/01/2004

Page 3 of 14

17~ Second , if GTCC can not b ? included in OCSs and failed fuel might not
, be accepted in the year stated on a DCS, then Pqrchasers would have little incentive to engage
in exchanges (because exchanges would not eli~ina~e the need for on-site storage).
18.
Third, Article V. E

of the contract provides for bilateral exchanges of like

~amo~nts of SNF and/or HLW (i.e., exchanges ?f DCSs foreq!Jal MTUs between Purchasers),

not the " last-bid auction procedure" that Mr. Graves refers to in his report (at page 14). One
cannot assume that a market with bilateral exchanges in:-kinq will produce the same results asa

market with a last-bid aucti~n procedure.. A large ,~umber of bila~eraf exChanges would be
required to. achieve the same result and, in. eact1exchange, there wou!9.

b~rgaining and the

attendant possibility of expropri~tion by.pur~hasers with desirable allocations. Moreover
market with bilateral exchanges in-kind ~oesnot produce as much information a~ a market with
a last-: bid auction procedure. Economists have recognized that seql,lential, bilateral trading i

not the most efficient way tc), organize

a market. 7

19.

Fourth, Article V. E of ~e contract also pro~ides that Pl,lrchasers must

submit exchange reque~ts to DOE for approval and gives DOE the discretion to disapprove

, proposed exchanges. Economists also hav~ recognized that ~ requirement for government
approval discourages trading.

See , e.

Stavins, " Transaction Costs and Tradeable Permits

29

J. Envir. Econ. & Management, (1~95) 133

J45. 8 I understand thatDOEmight disapprove

7. See, e.

8.

Barriers to Implementing Tradable Air Pollution Permits: Problems Yale J. on Re ~ulation (1983) 63 , 74; Stavins,. "Transaction Co~ts and Tradeable Permits, " 29 J r. con. Mana ement, (1995) 133 , 135 , note 5 the sequential and bilateral nature o" t e tralng process ea s to some initial trades that preclude better trades from being carried out subsequently"), and Atkinson & Tietehberg" Market Failure inlncentive- Bas~ Regulation: The Case of Emissions Trading, " 21 J. Environm9ntal Econ. & Management(1991) 17, 28 ("the type of bilateral, sequential trading that occurs under the bubble policy results in substantially smaller cost savings than would be expected from the more sophisticated, but uncommon, cost-effective trading process that analysts have historically presumed to exist." In 1981 , the State of Wisconsin implemented a program designed to allow for the limited trading of marketable discharge permits to control biological oxygen demand ona part of the Fox River, Hahn Economic Prescriptions for Environment Probl~nis: How.the Patient Followed the Doctor s Orders, J. Ecan. pers ~ectives , 3 (1989) 95, 97. The tu81 trading and cost savings of this program were m ma. , at 98. The program s disappointing

, Hahn & Noll

~egulatory Interactions,

053

' .

(...

, ,' " ,,

). , ,':;"
, ' '

, . " ''" ., "
Document 816-7 Filed 06/01/2004

" ,, .

"-'-

------

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Page 4 of 14

- 9exch~nges for m any reasons, including differences in storage cask requirements and

transportation requirements that potential exchanges would generate.

20.

The actual behavior of Purchasers to date does not support Mr. Graves

allocation assumptioii~' Even though many Purchasers currently have tradable DCSs and some
utilities (such as Yankee Atomic) have actively solidtedexchange prop

gsals no exchanges

have occurred. In his' report; Mr. Graves argues that the incentive to exchange would be greater
in the " Non- Breach Wortd: Graves Report, at 11- 13 & 17- 191 However , even if this Were true , it
,t-would not establish that the exchanges that Would occur in the Non-Breach World would

minimize aggregate cin-site storage costs and allow Connecticut Yanke1;~

dispose of all of its

nuclear waste by 2001.

21.

Mr. Graves ' conclusion regarding the net proceeds that plaintiff would

obtain from exchanging DCSsis also questionable because, for the reasons stated above, one
cannot ' know with certainty whether exchanges would occ~r and what the terms of exchanges

which did occur would be. 1o It is possible that the exchang es which did occUr would occur at

terms unfavorable to plaintiff, and thatinstead of obtaining net revenues from exchanges

, results have been attributed tQcertaio features of the market structure that also exist here: limited permit trading between small rtumbers' of market participants , subject to regulatory approval. Id. Also , see, Tripp & Dudek, " Institutional Guidelines for Desigining St1ccessful Transferable Rights pro grams Yale J. 6nRe~ulation (1989); 369 387 ("the rights to pollute are not f~ly tradeable un er t ox iver program , whic~, impairs the value of the

continued)
rights

9. Mr. Graves asserts

that " swaps of acceptance slots would allow Purchasers (and not, , insignificantly, DOE aJso) to realize substantial saving~'in cost and efficiency as compared with the initial allocation of acceptance slots under OFF." Graves Report , at 3. However, , even ,if this were true , it would not be sufficient to establish that Pur.chasers would propose the necessary sequence of exchanges or that DOE would approve)' the exchanges as they were proposed. Both Purchasers and DOE would have to evaluate each exchange on its own merits. DO~ would not be able to rely on Mr. Graves ' assump-Jion that a series' of bilateral exchanges would ultimately result in an allocation that allowed them to obtain

substantial savings in cost and efficiency".becauseitwould have noway of knowing whether all of the necessary exchanges would be proposed.
10. The price of exchanges could also be affected by other factors not taken

the end of their currently licensed lives, and Purchasers ' ability to obtain extensions of the licensed lives of their nuclear plants.

into account by Mr. Graves economic sequence model" such as Purchasers ' ability to shut-down plants prior to

054

" '

.'~,

,,,~

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 816-7

Filed 06/01/2004

Page 5 of 14

10-

plaintiff would incur net costs. Of Course, any such costs would offset plaintiff's claimed st~rage
costs savings.

Assumptions about GTCC Waste and F~iled Fuel

22.

I understand that plaintiff has both failed fuel and GTCC waste on its

site. 11 Under these circumstan~s, plaintiff will incur the costs of on-site storage until its failed
fuel and GTCC waste are removed from its site. Therefore, plaintiffs damage calculations
necessarily assume that its failed fuel and GTCC waste woulld also be accepted by DOE under

the assumed schedule discusse~ above. This assumption ' is sp~culative because the contract
does not require DOE to do this.
, D.

The Interrelationship between Assumptions

23.

Plaintiff's assl;Jmptions are interrelated in several respects. First , plaintiff's

experts ' conclusion that the proposed , ~cceptance schedule would minimize at-reactor storage
costs depends on their assumptions about exchanges , GTCC waste and failed fuel: if the
exchange market did not fun~ion , as plaintiffs experts assume, or DOE did not accept GTCC .

wast~ an~, failed fuel as plaintiff's experts assume , then there would be no way to know whether
the assumed acceptance schedule would minimize at-reactor storage costs. Second , Mr.
Graves analysis ' of the demand. for allocation slots (which determines the allocation schedule in

his economic sequence model) depends on the, assumed "

breach world" acceptan~e

s~hedule and the assumption that DOE would acceptGTCC waste and faile~ fuel under the
non- breach world" acceptance schedule. The interrelationship betWeen
these assumptions

makes plaintiff' s damage ' claim a house of cards: if anyone of the assumptions is incorrect , the

entire model would fa lI apart.

11. I understand thatGTCC waste is a fofln of low-level radioactive waste that contains concentrations of certain radioactive nuclides that exceed the concentration limits

established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for Class CwMte. Failed fuel is SNF
and/or HLW that does not meet the General Specifications for such fuel as setforth in

Appendix E of the contract.

055

- '

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
/0,

Document 816-7
11 -

Filed 06/01/2004

---'-_o_---~ Page 6 of 14

Daniel R. Fischel
,co

March 1

2002

056

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 816-7

Filed 06/01/2004

Page 7 of 14

057

,,

, '

~~ Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Business Addresses:

- ,

,,
Document 816-7

"" -"
, " -

Filed 06/01/2004

Page 8 of 14

DANIEL R. FISCHEL
Lexecon Inc. 332 South Michigan Avenue
, Chicago,

February 2002

Illinois 60604

(312) 322-0209

University of ChIcago Law School
1111 EasJ 6Q~ Street

Chicag~~' llIlnois 60637

(773) 834-4167

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE, '

Dean of Law School (1/4/99 - 2/01); Lee and Bre~a Freeman professor of Law and Business, University of Chicago Law School (7/1/89 - prese nt); Professor of Law; University of Chicago: Law Schoo!.(1/1184 - pre sent); Visiting, Professorof Law, University of Chicago Law School (7/1/82 -

'6/30/83). "

Professor of Law and BlIs(ness, University of Chicago Graduate School of Business (7/1/87,:

Director, Law and EconomtcsProg~,m, University of Chicago (1/1/84 - 6/30/91).

Assistant Professorof:~w, Nofthwestem University School ofl,aw (6If\Q, - 6/81);, Associate
Professor otLaW'-NorthYl~s ~em UnivE!rsitySChool of Law (6/81 - ~/82); promoted to full

professor in 6/82. '

AttomeywithLevy and Er~ns. Chicago; lIIinoi!) (7/79 - 6/80);,
Law Clerk for Associate Justice Potter Stewart of the United States Supreme Court (1978Law Clerk for Judge Thomas E. Fairchild , Chief Judge bfthe Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (1977 -

1979). 1978).
Chairman and President, Lexecon Inc.
Corporate Finance, CofJ)Orate

CONSULTING EXPERIENCE

AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION
Control Transactions , Corporations, Rnancial Institutions Regulation of Financial Markets , Regulation of Investments , Economic Analysis of Law.

058

).
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

. .-

-

, ' ., "
"""

" '., , .

. ~

Document 816-7

Filed 06/01/2004

Page 9 of 14

PUBLICATIONS

Business (1995).
Easterbrook).
' ARTICLES
Multidisciplinary Practice, The Business Lawyer, Vol. 55, (May 2000).

Payback: The Conspiracy to Destroy Michael Milken and His Rnancial Revolution

, Harper

The Economic Structure of Corporate Law, Harv~rd University Press (1991) (with Frank H.

(with Alan Sykes).

GovemmentLiabilitvforBreach of Contract , American L&Econ. Rev. V1 N1/2 313 (1999)

Lawversand COnfidentiality, 65 U. chi. LRev.

(1998).

The Law and Economics of Vanishina Premium Life Insurance , 22 Del J. COrp. Law 1. (1997)

(with Robert S. Stillman).
Coroarate Crime , 25 J. Legal Studies 319 (1996)(WithAtan O. Sykes)~

Grossman, Merton H. Miller, Kenneth R. Cone and David J. Ross).

Clusterina and Competition inAsset Markets, 20 j. Law & Econ. 23 ('1997HwithSanfbrd, J.'

The Use 6f.Tradina- ~odelsto ~mateAaareoate Damaaesin SecUrities Fraud Litiaatidn:" (the National Legal ProDOsal for Chanae. in Securities Class Actiohs: Abuses and Remedies Center for the Public Interest, 1994) (with David J.

Ross). .

Civil Rico After Reves: An Economic Commentary , 1993 Slip. CtRev. 157 (with Alan

O. Sykes).

Contract and Fiduciarv Dutv, 36 J. Law & Econ. 425 (1993) (with Frank H. Easterbrook).

(with David J. Ross).

Should the Law Prohibit " Manipulation" in Financial Markets? , 105 Harv. L Rev. 503 (1991)

Efficient Capital Markets. the Crash, and the Fraud on the Market Theory , 74 ComellL Rev.

907 (1989).
The Economics of Lender Liability,
99 Yale L J. 131 (1989).

The Corporate Contract , 89 Colum. L Rev. 1416 (1989) (with Frank H. Easterbrook); also Corporate Law and Economic Analysis (Cambridge University Press 1990) (Lucian published in

Bebchuk ed.

Should One Aaencv Reaulate Financial Markets , in Black Mondavand the Future of Financial Markets (R. Kormendi , R. Kamphuis & J. W. H. Watson , ed. ) (DowJones-lrwin Inc. 1988).
ERISA' s Fundamental Contradiction: The Exclusive Benefit Rule , 55 U. Chi. L Rev~ 1105 (1988) (with John H. Langbein).

059

..'

' -. . .
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

..". "
- 3-

.'

',

Document 816-7

Filed 06/01/2004

Page 10 of 14

. 4~ ' . l
M. Rosenfield and Robert S.

From MITE to CTS: Takeovers. the Williams Actiand the Commerce Clause , 1987 Sup. Ct. Rev. .

~I

The.- Reeulation of Banks and Bank Holdine ComDanies , 73 Va. L. Rev. 301 (1 987) (with Andrew

Stillman).

The Regulation of Account in a: S()me ~conomic issues 52 Brooklyn L. Rev. 1051 (1987).

Oraanized Exchanaesand the Reaulationof Dual Class Common Stock, 54 U. Chi. L. Rev. 119

(1987).

Comparable Worth and Discrimination in labor Markets , 53U. Chi. L. Rev. 891(1986) (with

EdwardP. Lazear).
Comparable Worth: A Rejoinder , 53 U. Chi. -L, Rev. 950 (1986) (with Edw~ud P. Lazear).

Close Comorations-andA8encY Costs , 38 Stan.

L. Rev~ 271 (1~86) (with

FrankH. Easterbrook).

The' Role ofiJabilitv Rules and the'Dedvative . Suit in Corpohlte Law: A-Thebretieal i:ind
Empirical Analvsis, 71 Com. L. Rev. 261 (1986' ) (with Michael aradley)~ '.

Regulatorv Conflict and Ent..v Reaulation of New FutUres Contracts , 59 J. Bus. 885 (:1985)~

Optimal Damaaes in Securities Cases ; 52 U. Chi. L. Rev. 611 (1985) (with Frank H. E:asterbrook);"

The Business Judament Rule and the Trans Union case, 40 Bus. Law: -1437 (1985)~:

Insidertradcno. and

Rev. 127(1984).

Investment AnaIVStS:

An E60nomicAm3lvsis ofDIIXS:v. SEC, 13 Hofstra L.

Limited Liability and the Comoration , 52 U~Chi. L. Rev; 89(1985) (with Frank H. Easterbrook).

LaborMarkets and Labor Law Compared with Capital Markets and Corporate law , 51 U. Chi. L Rev. 1061(1984).
Customer Protection in Futures and Securities Markets , 4 J. Futures Markets 273 (1984) (with

Sanford J. Grossman).
Easterbrook)~ .
The Regulation of Insider Tradina,

MandatorvDisciosure arid the Protection of Investors , 70 Va. L. Rev. 669 (1984) (with FrankH.
The Appraisal Remedy In Corporate Law 1983 Am. Bar Found. Res. ' 875.
35 Stan. L. Rev. 857 (1983) (with Dennis W. Carlton).

Voting in Corporate Law 26 J. Law & Econ. 395 (1983) (with Frank H. Easterbrook).
Auctions and Sunk Costs in Tender Offers, 35 Stan. L. Rev. 1 (1982) (with Frank H.

Easterbrook).
The CofPorateGovemance Movement , 35 V~d. L. Rev. 1259(1982).

060

..

.. '

,, '"

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 816-7
4-

Filed 06/01/2004

Page 11 of 14

Use of Mod~~: :Finarice The6rvin Securities Fraud Cases lnvolvina ActivelvTraded Securities
38 Bus. Law 1 (1982).

AntitrustSuits BvTaraets of Tender Offers , 80 Mich. L Rev. 1155 (May 1982) (with Frank H.

Easterbrook). '

Comorate Control Transactions , 91 Yale L. J. 698 (1982) (with Frank H. Easterbrook).

The - Race to the Sottom - Revisited: Reflections,on Recent Developments in Delaware Corooration Law, 76 Nw. Univ. L. Rev. 913 (1982).
Takeover Bids. Defensive Tactics and ShareholderS' Welfare , S6 Bus. Law 1733 (1981) (with Frank H. Easterbrook).

The Law and EconorTlics of Dividend Policy, 67 Va~ L. Rev. 699 (1981);\
The Proper Role of a Taraet' s Manaaement in Respondina to a Tender 'Offer 94 Harv. L Rev. 1161 J1981), (Wit!1 Frank H. Easterbl'()ok) (awardedpriie by Embry University for best paper

~ritten in (awandeeonoqticsfor the year 1981):

(1981). .,

Secondaf\' liability Under Section 10(b) of the Securities Act of 1934 , 69 California L. Rev. 80

Efficient Capital MarketTheorv. the Market for CorPoration Control. and the, Redulation of Cash reprinted in K. Scott and R. Posner ~. EConomic Tender . Offers. 57aex. L Rev. (197B); PerspeCnives on Corooration Law and, Secu~ties Reaulation (Little Brown 1980).
Antitrust liability for Attempts to Influence Government Action: The Basis and limits of the
Noerr~PenniriQtoi1 Doctrine , 45 U. ChtL. Rev. 80 (1977). ,
Commen"

The Demand and Standina ReQuirements in Stockholder Derivation Actions , 44 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1 8 (1977).
Comment;

The Use of GovemmentJ"ygaments

~vate An~trustLitiQation:Clavtdn Act

Section 5(a). Collateral Estoppel. and JurvTrial , 43 U. Chi. L. Rev. 338 (197()).
EDUCATION

University of Chicaao Law School , Chicago , Illinois; J;D. 1977. cum laude; Order of the Coif; Comment Editor. Vol. 44 University of Chicaao Law Review; Approximately top 1 % of the Class. Awarded Casper Platt Award for best paper written by a student of the. University of Chicago Law School; awarded Jerome N. Frank Prize for excellence in legal writing while a member of the University of Chicago Law Review, 1974 - 1977. Studied law and economics with Richard

Posner and other members of the faculty.
Brown University, Providence , Rhode Island; M. A 1974 in American History.
Cornell University.

Ithaca, New York; major-American History; minor- Economics; B. A. 1972.

061

.'

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 816-7

Filed 06/01/2004

Page 12 of 14

- 5-

TeSTIMONY
In the Matter of Coram Healthcare COrn. and Coram. Inc.. , In the United States Bankruptw.,Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 00Debtors 3299 ThrolJgh 00-3300 (MFW)(Decemher .14,

Testimony of Daniel R Fischel Re:

2001).

Affidavit'of-DanielR.Rschel in Re:

Jack M. Webb. SoecialDeou\Y...Receiver For American EaQle tnsuranGeComoanv v. ElvisMasoti. 'M~son BestCompaov, LP.. Oon D. HUtson. American Saale (;rouo: the.. Marion Phillip ,GJ:!!brle~ Frederick $. Anderson. Gedrae E Casso Richard Kurz. Patricia S. Pickard. Arthur Andersen &' Co.. LLP~. and Towers, Perrin Forester & Crosby, Inc.. DlB/Ailllinahast, In the District Court of TraVis CoUritY, Texas, 2015\ Judicial (September 7, 2001). 99-08253 Di~trict,; Cause No.

In the Matter-of Inquiry Cotieemlha Hiah~ Speed Access to Declaration of Daniel R Aschel Re: the Internet Over Cable and Other Facilities: Before the Federal Communications , Commissipn, Washington DC. GN, pocket N o. 0Q:-185, (D~c'arntion with K. Arrow ~ G. Becker; D. Carlton, R Gertner~' J. Kalt, H Sider'- andGust~v~ B.am~erger)(JUIY 24, 2001).
Declaration of Daniel R Fischel in Re: v.

Walter Green, on beh~lf~f himselfand aU

others

District Court, similarly situated Merck- Medea Manaaed Care. LL.C. , United states 99GIV 0847 (CLB) (June 18, 2001). Southern District of New York, Civil Actiqn No.

resti~ony

, (May 25, 2001).
(May 10, 2001).

of Daniel R. Aschel in Re:T~on Foods. Inc. atidLassoAcauisitionCotPoration v. lap. Inc., In the Chancery Court ofWashfrigton County, Arkansas, Case:' No~ 2oo1-749-4, -

Deposition of Daniel R Aschel in Re :T~ori Foods. Inc. and Lasso Acauisition Corooration v. lap, Inc. , In the Chancery Court of Washington County, Arkansas , Case No. E 2~1-:749-4

Rebuttal Report of Daniel R Fischel in Re:

Mvron Weiner. Nicholas Sitnyckv, Ronald Anderson and Robert Furman on behalf of themseivesand' all others similarly situated The Quaker Oats Comoanv and William. D. SmithburQ , United States District Court, Northe'tll District of Illinois , Case ~o~ 98 C 3123 , (February 19, 2001).

Deposition of Daniel R Fischel in Re: , Mvton Weiner. Nicholas Sitnvckv. Ronald Anderson and Robert Furman on behalf of themselves and all others similartv situated v. The Quaker Oats Gomoany and William D. SmithburQ, United Stat~s District Court" Northern District of
Illinois , Case N

98 C 3123, (January 24,

2001).

Myron Weiner. Nicholas Sitnycky; RonaldAnderson and Report of Daniel RFischelin Re: Robert Furman on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. The Quaker Oats Comoanv and William b. Smithbura , United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois , Case No. 98 C 3123, (December5,

2000).

Deposition of Daniel R Fischel in Re:

Retskv Familv Limited Partnership v. Price Waterhouse,

LLP , United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, No. 97 C

7694 , (October 31 2000).

062

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 816-7
6-

Filed 06/01/2004

Page 13 of 14

Joint Affidavit of Daniel R Fischel and David J. Ross in Re: Floyd D. Wilson. for himself and all others similarlY situated v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, in the First Judicial District Court, County of Santa Fe, State of New Mexico, No; 00101 CV-98-Q2814 (August 4, 2000).
, Affidavit of
Daniel R Fischel in Re:

T~ Rowe price Recovery Fund. loP.. and Carl Marks

Manaaement Co.. loP., individuallY and deriVatively on behalfof'Seaman Furniture Co., Inc. v. James Ru~n. M. D. Sass Associates. Inc.. Resuraence Asset ManaaementloL.C.. D. Sass COrporate Resuraence D., Sass , Comoration ResuroencePartlierS: LP. , Svminatoo. BVrori Hanev;Alan Rosenber'a. :Steven H. Halper. International. Ltd.. and Peter MCGeouah :and Seaman Furniture Co.. lnc. ~ In the Court of Chancery, of the state~f Delaware in a!1d for New Castle County, C.A. No. 18013, (J une 7~2000):

Testimony of Daniel R Fischel in , Re: Bank United of Texas, FSB. etaI'., v; United States of America , United ,States COurt of Federal Claims, Case, Number95-437C, (October 12 and 14, 19~9).

. Report of Da niel R Fisd,elin Re: Beil Atlantic Corp;~ eellco Partnership, , and GTE ~rp. AirTouch Communications, Inc. and WMC Partners; loP. , United States District Court, . N orthern District of California, San Francisco Division, Case No. C99-Q141- MHP, (August.

1999). . .
1999; July 10 , 1999; and June 16; t7

BarikUnited of Texas. FSB. et at, United States of Fischel in Re: Depositibn of Daniel America, United States Court of Federal Claims , Case Number 95-437C , (September, 26,
C. Robert, Suess. et aI., v. The United States , United , No. 90- 981 C (May 15, 1999).

1'999),

Testimony of Daniel R Fischel in Re: States Court of Federal aims,

Testimonyof'Daniel R Fischel hi Re:

Caiifornia Federal Bank v. United States , in the United States Court of Federal Claims, Case Number 92- 138C , (February 4 and 11, 1999). California Federal Bank v. United States , in the United , Case Number 92- 138C, (February 6, 1999; January 27 States Court of Federal CI~ims
and 30, 1999). '

Deposition of ()aniel R. Fisqhel in Re:

Deposition of Daniel

Fischel inRe:

C. Robert Suess, et aI. , v. The United 'States , United

States Court of FederalClahns, ~o/9()- 981C (October27 and 28, 1998).
, Deposition of Daniel RFischel in Re: Connector Service CorPoration v. Jeffrey Briaas , United States District Court , Northern District of Illinois , Eastern Division, No. 97- 7088 (August
,: 998).

Deposition of Daniel R Fischel in Re:

Statesman Savinas Holdina Corp.. et al. v. United States of America United States Court of Federal CI~ims, Case No. 90-773C, (May 4, 1998 and
February 12

, 1998). .
063

Testimony of Daniel R. Fischel in Re:

Glendale Federal Bank FSB v. United States of America, United States Court of Federal Claims , No. 90-772C~ (March 24 25 and 26, 1998; September 2: 3, 25, 26 and 27, 1997; October 7 , 16, 17, , 10, 11, 12, and 31 1997; December 8 9 and 10 , 1997).

.'' ,;," '
.-, ' 4'

,--. . ,,,,,':,', . '

,),--. ' ' ,

., . ," ,,:"' '" -- ' ', ' , '
y.

" -"

".,

. .

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 816-7

Filed 06/01/2004

Page 14 of 14

- 7Puhlicis Communication v.
True North

Affidavit o(Daniel R

Fischel and David J. Ross in Re:

Communications Inc.. et aI., United States District Court. Northem District of lllillois, 1997). Eastern Division, Case No. 97- c-8263, (December 7,
Glendale Federal Bank FSB v. United State bf America , CI~ims~ No. 90-772C, (August 27 aJ1(l28, 1997).
Comp~mv. etat v. Emst& Youno,

Deposition o(paniel R, Fischel in Re: United States, COlJrt of Fede~1

AUSA Life Insurance Testimony of DanielR~ \ i=isChefinRe: NO:. 94 CIV. the United Stat~s District Court. Southern District of New York, Master File
3116 (~~B)(J.~Y7 and 8, 1997). '

Deposition or D~niei R.

Santa' s t3est. f/kla NationalREmnoc. an nlirtois; aeneral limited parl~ership DartnerSh~nsel/Ruff Group Li~ PartnerstiJp, ~n Illinois rinser/Ruff Group , v. mitecf Partnership, a New JerSey limited psrternstiip
Rschel in Re:

Rennoc Li Limited PartemSrup, an Illinois limited partnership , In 'the ' Circuit Court of COok, Illinois

1997). County Depc,\rtrnent ~ Ch.~n~ry Division, No. 95 CH 12160, (June 17, ,

Lemer Goldman Sachs. et. aI. , Befo(e the American Arbitratiot) , 0fD~niel' R.~ Fi.sCha in Re: , 1997). , Arb!tratiOIl, Associatton, 75;.136-: 00090.:94 (Apti110
Hilton tJotels Coroorationand HLT CorPoration ITT Affidavit ofDanielR Fischel inRe: PMP (RLH) Corooration United States District Court, District of Nevada , CV- 97-O0095(March ~4 , 1997).
DepoSition of DanielR. Fischel in Re:

'k:

Glendale Federal Bank. FSB v. Umted' Stales' ofAmerica ~nd 31, 1997). Washington , D. C., Case No. 90-772C, (~arch 19, 1997; January3'(),
Statesman Savinas Holdino CorPoration v. United States 20, 1997). of America , Washington, D. C., CaSE! No. 9D-773-C, (February 1~ ar1~ , Westcap Enterprises. Inc. and WestGaPCOrooration (jfi--e~as , Houston Debtor; in the United states B~mkruptcyCourt. for the Southern Distri6t ' Division, Houston , Texas; Case No. 96-43191- H2- 11, (November 1996). . United States of America v. Robert R KriliCh, inthe United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois , Eastern Division" No~94 CR 419,

Deposition of Daniel R. Aschel in Re:

TestimonyofDahiel R. Fischel in Re:

TestimohyofDaniel R. Fi~chel in R~:

(August 20, 1996 and July 15,

1996) .

Depositioh of Daniel R. Aschel in Re: , McMahan & Company. Frolev, Rew

Investment C6., Inc.

and Wechsler & Krumholz. Inc. v. Wherehouse Entertainment. Inc., Louis A Kwiker. Georqe A Smith. Michael T. Q' Kane. Lawrence K. Harris. et aI. , United States District Court , Southern District of New York, Index No. 88Giv. 0321 (SS) (AJP), (July 16, 1996 and June 10 , 1996).
, Deposition of Daniel R. Fischel in Re:

Joseph W. and Helen B. TeaQue. Steven Allen Barker, Rita Strahowski. Swannee Beck. and Lifetime Partners of PTL. as representatives of a nationwide class corisistina of 150. 129 Lifetime Partners and of 27. 839 persons who have partially paid for Lifetime Partnerships v. JamesO. 'Bakker in the United, States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , Civil Action No. 3:87CV514 , (June 28

1996).

064