- 102 -
executives that were comparable to a specific Retained Executive
in circumstances where the experts differed, except as
specifically noted.
In a similar vein, even where the two experts agreed that a
given executive was comparable to a Retained Executive, they
frequently differed regarding the amount of 1992 compensation
they attributed to the executive. In resolving this difference,
we rely on the fact that Ms. Meyer demonstrated several instances
where Mr. Rosenbloom’s methodology diverged from standard
practice and/or SEC disclosure conventions. In addition to Mr.
Rosenbloom’s treatment of perquisites in a manner inconsistent
with SEC disclosure conventions (discussed above), Ms. Meyer
convincingly demonstrates that Mr. Rosenbloom used nonstandard
methods for valuing stock options, restricted stock, and the
costs of defined benefit and defined contribution plans.62
Frequently, though not always, Ms. Meyer’s compensation figure
for a comparable executive was less than Mr. Rosenbloom’s figure,
a position that disfavored the position of petitioner, her
client. Overall, given the demonstrated idiosyncracies in Mr.
Rosenbloom’s methods of computing compensation, we defer to Ms.
62 Respondent even concedes on brief that some of Mr.
Rosenbloom’s methodology in valuing compensation merits
criticism.
Page: Previous 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011