How is this relevant?
Their claim seems to be that he committed perjury by saying the stock was undervalued. It appears his analysis was spot on. If anything, by saying it was undervalued, wouldn’t she have gotten more stock as a result? I’m sure the judge had a set value in mind, so an undervalued stock would have meant more shares for her.
I meant to say over valued. That might help make me a bit more coherent.