People
How we helped
AlixPartners provided expert evidence that was cited in a U.S. federal court decision granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants. OPERS, a state pension fund, alleged that from August 1, 2006 through November 20, 2007, Freddie Mac and certain of its former senior officers (together, the Defendants) made a series of materially false and misleading statements. The primary claim focused on an alleged failure to disclose Freddie Mac’s exposure to subprime loans. OPERS contended that the November 20, 2007 “revelation of significant subprime losses and potential capital impairment caught the investing public completely by surprise,” causing Freddie Mac’s share price to fall by 29% and “creating a market capitalization loss to its shareholders of almost $6.6 billion in one day.”
The AlixPartners team, led by Partner & Managing Director Dr. Chudozie Okongwu, was engaged by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, lawyers for Freddie Mac, to provide economic and financial analysis addressing the Plaintiff’s allegations. In particular, Dr. Okongwu was asked to provide background on the mortgage market, assess whether there was a commonly accepted definition of a “subprime” loan during the period, analyze the relevance of Freddie Mac’s disclosures, and compare the characteristics and performance of certain specified categories of Freddie Mac loans with an industry-wide dataset of both prime and subprime loans. Dr. Okongwu submitted an expert report addressing these issues and provided deposition testimony. The loan characteristics and performance datasets were composed of hundreds of millions of rows of data, which were analyzed leveraging AlixPartners’ forensic data analytics capabilities.
In a Memorandum of Opinion and Order dated August 29, 2025, the Court granted summary judgment in the Defendants’ favor, concluding with respect to Plaintiff’s primary claim that “OPERS ha[d] failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact on this claim.” The Court cited Dr. Okongwu’s analysis, noting that it provided evidence that the specified categories of loans “did not perform like subprime loans” which “contradicts OPERS’ characterization of these loans as subprime.”
