Personally I see no validity upon which to "VALUE" EG as being a corporate asset if in the wake of his departure he took 50% of the share value with him. His accusations have not been proven, but the effect of his actions are evidenced via the feelings of those who question AAPT managment, albeit without substantiation of claim. As our justice system asserts innocence until proven, then all should hold in abeyance until a judcial decision is reached... wouldn't you agree?
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
