United States' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Plaintiffs'

a tender than with what the net cost mayormay not be of the hedge. (Beal Depositionat 194:17-22.)The key point is that Dubinsky has isolated one aspect of alarger transaction and asserted that that one aspect lacks aprofi t potential. Dubinsky's vantage point is peculiar.Second, Dubinsky's explanation regarding the absence ofprofit potential is fallacious even when looking only at theswaps themselves (which, for reasons just explained isproblematic). Three outcomes were possible considering all fourswaps together:1. All of the swaps could have settled out of the money, inwhich case BPB would be out approximately $2.5 million, thenet premium paid.2. The long swaps could have settled in the money, and theshort swaps could have settled out of the money, in whichcase BPB would have received a payment of $2.21 billiondollars.3. All of the swaps could have settled in the money, in whichcase Bemont would have received a $10 million payout.(Outcome 2 describes the payoff if the long swaps settle in themoney and the short swaps out of the money on everydetermination date for all four swaps. This could have happenedfor one pair of swaps but not the other pair, or for onedetermination date but not the others, in which case there would- 9 -"."._.__._....._.._..-_..,,~._... ,...._.,._.__._------~.,---"._-~-_._-,-------,---~-,--_.._.. ._~_._-"_.._..._,._---~-----_.~.._--...-._--,~._.._-----_.".'~--