If he was basically being compensated at a given level for a given period of time in order to make him 'whole', most shareholders would not have a problem with that being done. It really does come down to transparency, doesn't it? For the life of me, I just don't understand how come they don't 'get it' in regards to being transparent. Most (1/2?) of their problems with shareholders and the market in general would not have occurred or would disappear if they were 'transparent'.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
