- 118 -
(cc) Mr. Thompson
Mr. Thompson’s 1992 compensation, excluding the Retention
Payment,66 was $576,972. Because reasonable compensation for Mr.
Thompson in 1992 exceeded his 1992 compensation (exclusive of the
Retention Payment) by $182,388, this excess constitutes the
amount of Mr. Thompson’s Retention Payment that petitioner has
shown by clear and convincing evidence was reasonable
compensation in 1992 for purposes of section 280G(b)(4).
(dd) Mr. Williams
Mr. Williams’s 1992 compensation, excluding the Retention
Payment and disputed 1991 SRP Benefit, was $430,401. Because
reasonable compensation for Mr. Williams in 1992 exceeded his
1992 compensation (exclusive of the Retention Payment and
disputed 1991 SRP Benefit) by $328,959, this excess constitutes
the amount of Mr. Williams’s Retention Payment and disputed 1991
SRP Benefit that petitioner has shown by clear and convincing
evidence was reasonable compensation in 1992 for purposes of
section 280G(b)(4).
(v) Messrs. Francis, Free, Hite, and Pugh
With respect to Messrs. Francis, Free, Hite, and Pugh, Ms.
Meyer was unable to find any SEC proxy disclosures of
compensation for comparable executives; i.e., for a chief
66 Mr. Thompson did not receive a 1991 SRP Benefit.
Page: Previous 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011