- 99 -
(i) Selection of Comparable Companies
The experts differed to some extent in their choices of
companies they considered comparable to petitioner. In her
rebuttal report, Ms. Meyer used 18 companies she considered
comparable, chosen from what she termed the “labor market” of the
Retained Executives, which she defined somewhat crudely to
include any company that “electricity runs through” and that met
one of two additional criteria: (i) The company was one for
which the Retained Executives would be qualified to work, or (ii)
it was one from which petitioner could draw executives to replace
any of its own executives who decided to leave. Mr. Rosenbloom’s
list was confined to 10 of the companies used by Ms. Meyer. Mr.
Rosenbloom considered only companies in the Value Line electrical
equipment industry group, which group contained petitioner,
thereby excluding electrical equipment manufacturers that were
primarily defense contractors or tied to telecommunications,
satellite, or other high technology industries. These excluded
high technology companies, he explained, were in less stable
markets and thus not comparable to petitioner, whose business was
based on a mature technology with products that changed only
incrementally. In line with this reasoning, Mr. Rosenbloom
specifically criticized Ms. Meyer’s use of four companies as
comparables--General Instrument Corp., Litton Industries, Inc.,
Rockwell International Corp., and Varian Associates, Inc.--on the
Page: Previous 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011