United States First Circuit

In claims by former employee that he relied on plaintiff-employer's negligent misrepresentations that his incentive stock options would be viable for ten years, jury verdict finding that though defendant reasonably relied on negligent representations when he failed to exercise his options within three months of resignation but awarding no damages is affirmed where: 1) the district court's decision to admit expert testimony was not an abuse of discretion; and 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial.

Appellate Information

• Decided 09/08/2008
• Published 09/08/2008

Judges

Court

• United States First Circuit

Counsel