Comments on: Courts are supposed to do justice even if doing so costs individuals a lot of money. http://blogs.geniocity.com/friedman/2009/02/courts-are-supposed-to-do-justice-even-if-doing-so-costs-individuals-a-lot-of-money/ The ways law rules creative endeavors and the ways law itself is a creative endeavor Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:08:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: gpiolwhx http://blogs.geniocity.com/friedman/2009/02/courts-are-supposed-to-do-justice-even-if-doing-so-costs-individuals-a-lot-of-money/comment-page-1/#comment-4742 gpiolwhx Wed, 15 Jun 2011 06:00:27 +0000 http://blogs.geniocity.com/friedman/?p=1549#comment-4742 http://www.reallouisvuittonhandbags.com/ - Real Louis Vuitton Handbags http://www.reallouisvuittonhandbags.com/ – Real Louis Vuitton Handbags

]]> By: Ruling Imagination: Law and Creativity » Blog Archive » Dow v. Rohm & Haas, settled http://blogs.geniocity.com/friedman/2009/02/courts-are-supposed-to-do-justice-even-if-doing-so-costs-individuals-a-lot-of-money/comment-page-1/#comment-2325 Ruling Imagination: Law and Creativity » Blog Archive » Dow v. Rohm & Haas, settled Mon, 16 Mar 2009 00:08:56 +0000 http://blogs.geniocity.com/friedman/?p=1549#comment-2325 [...] of the more controversial pieces I have written on this blog was in connection with the lawsuit brought by shareholders of Rohm & Haas to force Dow Chemical to complete its purchase of Rohm & Haas pursuant to a contract entered last summer that pegged [...] [...] of the more controversial pieces I have written on this blog was in connection with the lawsuit brought by shareholders of Rohm & Haas to force Dow Chemical to complete its purchase of Rohm & Haas pursuant to a contract entered last summer that pegged [...]

]]> By: pfriedman http://blogs.geniocity.com/friedman/2009/02/courts-are-supposed-to-do-justice-even-if-doing-so-costs-individuals-a-lot-of-money/comment-page-1/#comment-2315 pfriedman Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:16:23 +0000 http://blogs.geniocity.com/friedman/?p=1549#comment-2315 No, I'm not in Philly, Ron, but you've got a good point. That could well weigh in the balance regarding the public interest. I by no means meant to convey that I had thought through the entirety of what might constitute the public interest. My principal point was that Nocera's belief that good sense and law cannot coincide here is not true. No, I’m not in Philly, Ron, but you’ve got a good point. That could well weigh in the balance regarding the public interest. I by no means meant to convey that I had thought through the entirety of what might constitute the public interest. My principal point was that Nocera’s belief that good sense and law cannot coincide here is not true.

]]> By: Ron D. http://blogs.geniocity.com/friedman/2009/02/courts-are-supposed-to-do-justice-even-if-doing-so-costs-individuals-a-lot-of-money/comment-page-1/#comment-2312 Ron D. Wed, 11 Mar 2009 23:23:53 +0000 http://blogs.geniocity.com/friedman/?p=1549#comment-2312 Greg, You forgot to add one other "public interest", about 3500 people in Philadelphia. Guess you're not one of them, eh? Greg,
You forgot to add one other “public interest”, about 3500 people in Philadelphia. Guess you’re not one of them, eh?

]]> By: Greg http://blogs.geniocity.com/friedman/2009/02/courts-are-supposed-to-do-justice-even-if-doing-so-costs-individuals-a-lot-of-money/comment-page-1/#comment-2274 Greg Mon, 02 Mar 2009 06:43:36 +0000 http://blogs.geniocity.com/friedman/?p=1549#comment-2274 Peter - I'd just like to say that I appreciate the time that you have taken to provide your opinion in this matter. It helful for investors to then make decisions based on how the Chancellor may approach the case. That said, it appears your argument presents a very slippery slope. It could be used by the auto companies to void all their contracts and debts because of the number of people they employ. The life insurance companies who couldn't have possibly forseen a 50% fall in the market in just a year could void their guaranteed annuitues since they employ so many, as could the bond and mortgage insurers. What about the airline companies that couldn't have forseen the meteoric rise in fuel prices in 2007 and were caught unhedged, and then they hedged at high prices that have since fallen through the floor - can they claim relief due to the public interest they serve and the number of layoffs that may have resulted from their decisions? My concern with your analysis is that your definition of "foreseeable" seems to preclude anything more than ordinarily probable. After the uninterrupted stretch of corporate earnings increases that were seen from 2003 through 2007, it probably seemed extremely remote that the economy would suffer such a drastic, retraction, but people like Schiff, Schiller, Roubini, Precter, and others have been crying "wolf" for years to deaf ears. That Dow was incompetant in ignoring the warning signs is without debate, that Dow couldn't have forseen the utter "demand destruction" is a matter of opinion. The "public interest" does not stand to lose if Dow is forced to acquire ROH, the losers will be Dow management, Dow shareholders, and Dow bond holders. The forced acquisition of ROH will not permanently cause the "public" to lose a common right, inherit a liability previously unknown, subject the public to constraints that may adversely affect the common good, or cause an affect that damages the public well being. If this acquisition forces Dow into bankrutcy, how does that negatively affect the public any more so than the numerous bankruptcy's that will occur because debt holders or others refuse to renotiate the terms of their claims. I'm not an attorney, but the public good as is most commonly understood is not at risk in this situation. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, if the Chancellor decides that the public good is compromised because of a foolish contract that e unability for investors (lenders & owners) to , Peter – I’d just like to say that I appreciate the time that you have taken to provide your opinion in this matter. It helful for investors to then make decisions based on how the Chancellor may approach the case. That said, it appears your argument presents a very slippery slope. It could be used by the auto companies to void all their contracts and debts because of the number of people they employ. The life insurance companies who couldn’t have possibly forseen a 50% fall in the market in just a year could void their guaranteed annuitues since they employ so many, as could the bond and mortgage insurers. What about the airline companies that couldn’t have forseen the meteoric rise in fuel prices in 2007 and were caught unhedged, and then they hedged at high prices that have since fallen through the floor – can they claim relief due to the public interest they serve and the number of layoffs that may have resulted from their decisions?

My concern with your analysis is that your definition of “foreseeable” seems to preclude anything more than ordinarily probable. After the uninterrupted stretch of corporate earnings increases that were seen from 2003 through 2007, it probably seemed extremely remote that the economy would suffer such a drastic, retraction, but people like Schiff, Schiller, Roubini, Precter, and others have been crying “wolf” for years to deaf ears. That Dow was incompetant in ignoring the warning signs is without debate, that Dow couldn’t have forseen the utter “demand destruction” is a matter of opinion.

The “public interest” does not stand to lose if Dow is forced to acquire ROH, the losers will be Dow management, Dow shareholders, and Dow bond holders. The forced acquisition of ROH will not permanently cause the “public” to lose a common right, inherit a liability previously unknown, subject the public to constraints that may adversely affect the common good, or cause an affect that damages the public well being. If this acquisition forces Dow into bankrutcy, how does that negatively affect the public any more so than the numerous bankruptcy’s that will occur because debt holders or others refuse to renotiate the terms of their claims. I’m not an attorney, but the public good as is most commonly understood is not at risk in this situation.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, if the Chancellor decides that the public good is compromised because of a foolish contract that e unability for investors (lenders & owners) to ,

]]>