Expert Challenged for Ignoring Rule 144 Discounts Under Daubert

Business Valuation UpdateVol. 17 No. 9
Legal and Court Case Update
September 2011

Access the Full Article

This article is available with a subscription to any of these products:
Already a subscriber?  Login
This article is also available for purchase. (357 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.)
June 3, 2011
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.

See Also

Boomj.com v. Pursglove

Full Text of Court Cases
June 3, 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.