First Marblehead v. House, No. 07-2789 affirms a jury verdict in an employee stock option case. The First time the case was at the First was here: First Marblehead Corp. v. House, 473 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2006) (our coverage here) The plaintiff resigned. According to the jury, the company negligently told him that he could exercise his stock options up to ten years after the resignation (as opposed to three months). But the jury found that if had been aware of that three month time limit, he wouldn’t have exercised them.
The First turns back a Daubert challenge. It points out a couple of things: 1) Voir dire of expert witnesses need not be outside the presence of the jury; and 2) an expert can explain to the jury how stock options work (I think this is a dubious proposition, since stock options are just about as legal an issue as they get).