analysis reveals that the instant transaction did have potential for the type of abuse Congress sought to prevent. Jewelcor purchased Casual Male shares between November 2001 and January 2002 at significantly lower prices than it received for the 79,467 Casual Male shares it surrendered in April 2002. Local Rule 56.1 Statement, ¶¶ 15-16. Because Jewel-cor was a beneficial owner of Casual Male at all relevant times, it could have had access to inside information that Casual Male’s stock price would rise between January and April 2002 — especially given that the President, director, and controlling shareholder of Jewelcor was also an officer and director of Casual Male, subsequent to the Option grant and at the time of its exercise. Id. at ¶¶ 8-9; see Gould Investors, 445 F.Supp. at 1154 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, there was a sufficient “span of
holding that the trial court committed no abuse of discretion in denying the appointment of the defendants requested expert as there was no undue prejudice to the defendant because the defendants claim on the predicted effect of the experts testimony was purely speculative holding that testimony was both speculative and conclusory holding that red flags along with the defendants positions within the company were sufficient to demonstrate scienter holding that counsels motion was not sufficient where counsel alleged only that counsel and appellants positions had become adverse holding that defendants positions as insiders established that they had access to inside information which was sufficient to constitute evidence of speculative abuse