- 29 -
When the Court asked Hakala if he was “confident” in his
conclusion that reasonable compensation for 1996 should be
substantially below reasonable compensation for 1995 (see supra
tables 4 and 5), he responded as follows:
THE WITNESS: No, and I think they have a valid point
that there was more income, and what I missed was that in
the other income was the rebate from Fleetwood. When you
factor the rebate from Fleetwood in, the compensation for
‘96 should go up. If you do that, then you have to adjust
the compensation for ‘95 downward. So, you know, I would
agree that I think intuitively, ‘96 should probably be
higher than ‘95.
Notwithstanding this testimony, Hakala did not change his
report recommendations, and respondent’s posttrial briefs still
urge us to adopt Hakala’s report recommendations, with
substantially lower reasonable compensation for 1996 as compared
to 1995.8
7(...continued)
or the nearest 5,000. In effect, if I was at 599, I’d round
up to 600,000. If it was at 485, I might round to 485.
However, notwithstanding Hakala’s concession that “no one”
in a real situation would determine reasonable compensation to
six significant figures, Hakala did not change his report
recommendation, and respondent’s posttrial briefs still urge us
to adopt Hakala’s six-significant-figure recommendations.
8 At trial, Hakala explained that, if he adjusted upward
the maximum reasonable compensation for Jack for 1996, then he
would have to make a corresponding downward adjustment for 1995.
Neither Hakala at trial nor respondent on brief has explained why
an upward adjustment for 1996 on account of the Fleetwood rebate
would require a downward adjustment for 1995, except that at
trial Hakala invoked the imagery of “squeezing on a balloon.”
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011