- 100 -
grounds that all were substantially dissimilar from petitioner,
either as primarily defense contractors or as high technology
companies involved in an industry characterized by rapid
technological change and growth.
We find Mr. Rosenbloom’s critique persuasive. We are
convinced that petitioner was engaged in a relatively mature
industry characterized by incremental product changes, in
distinct contrast to the high technology companies and defense
contractors included as comparables by Ms. Meyer. As noted, the
legislative history of section 280G(b)(4) specifically endorses
the use of “similarly situated employees” working for “comparable
employers” as a means of determining reasonable compensation. S.
Rept. 99-313, supra at 919-920, 1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 3) at 919-920;
H. Rept. 99-426, supra at 902, 1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 2) at 902. The
differences highlighted by Mr. Rosenbloom persuade us that some
of the companies used by Ms. Meyer are not “comparable
employers”. Finding Mr. Rosenbloom’s analysis persuasive, we
accept as comparable the 10 companies common to both experts’
lists.60 We reject as comparables the four companies noted above
60 Those companies are Cooper Industries, Inc.; Emerson
Electric Co.; General Signal Corp.; W.W. Grainger, Inc.;
Honeywell, Inc.; Hubbell, Inc.; Johnson Controls, Inc.; Magnetek,
Inc.; Thomas & Betts Corp.; and Westinghouse Electric Corp.
However, Magnetek, Inc., is generally disregarded because its
1992 proxy materials in the record are not comparable in format
to the other companies.
Page: Previous 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011