Boomj.com v. Pursglove

BVLaw
Full Text of Court Cases
June 3, 2011

Access the Full Article

This article and its downloads are available with a subscription to any of these products:
It is also available in this product:
Already a subscriber or product owner?  Login
This article is also available for purchase. (2,308 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
securities litigation
expert testimony
Boomj.com v. Pursglove
2011 WL 2174966 (D. Nev.)
US
Federal Court
Nevada
United States District Court
Patrick Gannon (defendant)
Dawson

Summary

Court declines to exclude expert’s value of shares in publicly traded company, finding the expert adequately considered Rule 144 “time and quantity” restrictions.
Boomj.com v. Pursglove
PDF, Size: 80 KB

See Also

Expert Challenged for Ignoring Rule 144 Discounts Under Daubert

Legal and Court Case Update
September 2011

Court declines to exclude expert’s value of shares in publicly traded company, finding the expert adequately considered Rule 144 “time and quantity” restrictions.

This article also appears in:
Daubert Challenges: The Courts Raise the Bar