While I join you in applauding Mr. Alderson's submission, I must disagree on the amount of reliance the Court placed on Dr. Chamberlain's testimony. In the LTW Opinion From January 3, 2012 on page 14 the Court states "The Court found Dr. Chamberlain's opinion to be largely unconvincing..." The Court went on to use other words to describe her testimony; accurately descriptive words like "suspect" and "contorted" and once again describing it as "unconvincing".
Unfortunately, this was largely the only section of the LTW Opinion that I agreed with. There were very few conclusions of law which makes it difficult to overturn on appeal but there were some findings of fact that were clearly in error.
For instance, on page 19 the Court found that, according to Mitchell Eitel, "the LTWs were entitled only to stock, not cash." This finding is clearly erroneous because on not one but two occasions within Eitel's Deposition conducted by Jonathan Hochman, Eitel admitted that there were events that would lead to the method of payment being something other than stock. On one occasion (Eitel Depo page 142 line 18) he was forced to capitulate and admit that fact but on another occasion he offered it up voluntarily (Eitel Depo page 156 lines 4-7).
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
