- 152 -
imbalance. As we understand the premise for the approach
actually used, it contains the assumption that the imbalance
would vary as between the parties as it did between the 1990 and
1991 years. From reviewing the facts of these cases and some of
the experts’ reports, it is our understanding that independent
(arm’s length) parties who enter into reciprocal exchanges of
services do so because of perceived benefits each gains from use
of the other’s facilities. One possible reason for such a
reciprocal agreement is to expand service available for customers
and potential customers without the capital infrastructure costs
that would otherwise be incurred. Although one party’s costs may
be greater or less than the other’s, that is not the basis for
the reciprocity. Ultimately, a reciprocal agreement envisions
that compensation occur when one of the parties performs more
services for the other than are received. That is the case here,
and petitioners’ expert, although accepting that the approach of
DHL and DHLI was at arm’s length, devised an approach that
ignored the parties’ understanding.
In addition to the theory and substance deficiencies in
petitioners’ expert's report, respondent points out the following
flaws: (1) Many of the numbers for 1989 and 1990 are not
supported in the record, and no analysis was provided as to how
they were calculated; (2) the position is taken that petitioners’
expert’s estimated numbers were more reliable than DHLI’s actual
numbers, even though a large portion of DHLI’s financial
Page: Previous 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011