In re Salomon Analyst Level 3 Litigation

BVLaw
Full Text of Court Cases
January 11, 2005

Access the Full Article

This article and its downloads are available with a subscription to any of these products:
Already a subscriber?  Login
This article is also available for purchase. (1,746 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
4813 Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone
517911 Telecommunications Resellers
In re Salomon Analyst Level 3 Litigation
2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 317
US
Federal Court
New York
United States District Court
Brad S. Karp, Christopher J. Marino, Daniel A. Osborn, David C. Katz, Donald R. Hall, Eric S. Goldstein, Frederic S. Fox, Gregory Linkh, Jack Zwick, Jacqueline Sailer, Joseph H. Weiss, Joyce S. Huang, Martin London, Peter K. Vigeland, Richard A. Rosen
Lynch

Summary

In this securities fraud case, a federal district court ruled that valuation models are opinions, not facts, and that, therefore, an appraiser does not have a duty to disclose others' valuation models in the appraiser's reports.
In re Salomon Analyst Level 3 Litigation
PDF, Size: 76 KB

See Also

Valuation models are ‘opinion’ not ‘fact;’ appraiser need not disclose others’ valuations

Legal and Court Case Update
April 2005

In this securities fraud action, the issue was whether research analyst reports disseminated by Jack Grubman and Salomon Smith Barney (SSB) were materially false and misleading.