I apologize for the delay.
I believe I may not have stated myself properly, I think that one of the reasons you may have lost is that your case relied on the improper shift of the burden of proof
onto the defendant. What I mean by this is that you would have to prove the sales price and circumstances were a break in the other party's duty to the corporation (fiduciary duty
to the corporation and insider dealing issues), whereas the defendant has no obligation to show that the sale was worth that amount (they only need to show it was more likely than not a good business decision for the corporation if you are able to meet your burden of proof first). The nuances here are somewhat convoluted and usually are not at issue in small claims cases, but they are still valid issues. From your description, this shift actually goes against your case. But remember, again, I was not there and this is a legal analysis that is very fact specific and is dependent on details not just a general representation
of the trial.
Regarding the admission of evidence, the issues you raise there have a more sturdy basis. If the Court improperly admitted testimony
by these parties, you can request that the court reconsider its opinion. Remember, it is not whether or not the testimony was false, only whether or not the testimony is inadmissible. For instance, a witness can lie and say that "I entered into a contract
with Joe for ..." this will be an admissible statement assuming the contract is at issue. However, another witness cannot testify as follows: "Joe told me that he entered into a contract for ..." this is a statement of hearsay and is inadmissible and should not be considered by the Court.
The rules of evidence are somewhat complex, but you can work through the evidence code to find what is hearsay and what is not (basic evidence takes an entire semester at law school, and is taught in subsequent classes for the entire law school career).
In simplified form, the documents you identify above are likely admissible under various theories of evidence. The testimony must come from the witness' personal knowledge, it cannot be something they heard from someone else.
If the Court was allowing a great deal of evidence, or key evidence, that was not in the party's direct personal knowledge (something they knew or discovered without someone else telling them), that would create a ground for a revised judgment.