- 19 -
it was likely that ADDI&C would have disposed of its Winn-Dixie
stock through a private placement. On the record before us, we
find that ADDI&C probably would have used the dribble-out method
to sell its Winn-Dixie stock, since it was likely that such a sale
would have resulted in a higher value for ADDI&C’s Winn-Dixie
stock than would have been yielded if that stock had been sold in
a private placement. That is because a nonaffiliated investor who
purchased that stock in a private placement would have been
subject to a 2-year holding period under SEC rule 144(d)(1) and
thereafter would have been subject for one year to the volume
limitation in SEC rule 144(e)(2). See SEC rule 144(k).
Although respondent's expert Mr. Thomson acknowledges that
ADDI&C's Winn-Dixie stock was subject to the SEC rule 144(e)(1)
volume limitation and that, as we have found, ADDI&C probably
10(...continued)
method. However, after Mr. Howard prepared that report, he
learned that a purchaser of ADDI&C's Winn-Dixie stock in a
private placement would have been required to hold that stock for
2 years under SEC rule 144(d)(1) and thereafter would have been
subject for 1 year to the volume limitation in SEC rule
144(e)(2). Consequently, Mr. Howard changed the view reflected
in his expert report regarding ADDI&C's sale of its Winn-Dixie
stock by private placement and took the position in his rebuttal
report and at trial that it was more likely that ADDI&C would
have disposed of its Winn-Dixie stock through the dribble-out
method because that method would have yielded a greater value for
that stock than would have been obtained through its sale by
private placement. We reject any contention by respondent that
Mr. Howard should not be permitted to change in his rebuttal
report and at trial the position that he had taken in his expert
report with respect to ADDI&C's Winn-Dixie stock. See Rule
143(f). The Court is interested in reaching the proper result,
aided by witnesses who will recognize and correct an error. We
are not interested in attempts to force a party to maintain an
erroneous or unreasonable position for strategic advantage.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011