Dow, Rohm Are Talking Again - Some Thoughts

Dow Chemical (DOW) and Rohm & Haas (ROH) have confirmed they are back at the bargaining table. To accentuate the "a deal is close" scenario, Dow announced in an 8K filing that they have renegotiated their loans with the syndicate and the key point is that the loan can be extended for an additional year under certain conditions.

From the 8K

On September 8, 2008, The Dow Chemical Company (the “Company”), as borrower, entered into a Term Loan Agreement (the “Original Agreement”) with the lenders party thereto and Citibank, N.A., as administrative agent for the lenders, in order to partially finance the acquisition by the Company (the “Acquisition”) of Rohm and Haas Company (the “Target”), to retire certain debt of the Target and to pay related costs and expenses. On March 5, 2009, the parties to the Original Agreement entered into a First Amendment to Term Loan Agreement (the “First Amendment”) in order to amend the Original Agreement (as so amended, the “Loan Agreement”).

Under the Loan Agreement, the lenders have committed to lend to the Company an aggregate principal amount that will not exceed the sum of each of their commitments, the total amount of which was reduced by $500,000,000 to $12,500,000,000 pursuant to the First Amendment, in a single term borrowing on the date of the closing of the Acquisition. The Loan Agreement will mature on the earlier of (a) the first anniversary of the closing date and (b) April 14, 2010; provided, however, that the original maturity date of the Loan Agreement may be extended to the date occurring one year following the original maturity date, at the option of the Company, subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions precedent, including (i) the absence, since December 31, 2008, of a material adverse change in the financial position or operations of the Company and its consolidated subsidiaries, considered as a whole (except for the Acquisition and the financing thereof and except for any changes disclosed in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008; provided that any changes or developments relating to matters so disclosed (and the effects thereof) that arise after December 31, 2008 may be taken into account in determining whether a material adverse change has occurred), (ii) compliance with the total leverage ratio covenant described below as of the original maturity date, if such covenant is applicable on such date, (iii) the reduction of the aggregate principal amount of the loans under the Loan Agreement to $8,000,000,000 or less, and (iv) the payment of an extension fee equal to 2% of the aggregate principal amount of the outstanding loans after giving effect to the extension.

The Loan Agreement permits loans bearing interest at a rate per annum equal to either the prime rate or LIBOR plus, in each case, a margin that varies based on the Company’s credit rating (the “Applicable Margin”); provided, however, that if the original maturity date of the Loan Agreement is extended as described in the preceding paragraph, then the Applicable Margin shall increase, as set forth in the Loan Agreement, on the date of extension, on the 90th day following such date and on each successive 90th day thereafter.

The Company has agreed to pay to the lenders a structuring fee equal to 1.25% of the aggregate amount of the lenders’ commitments. Additionally, under the Loan Agreement, the Company is obligated from time to time to pay certain duration fees to the lenders, as set forth in the Loan Agreement. Higher rates will apply to certain of these fees (i) unless, on or prior to the 90th day following the date of the closing of the Acquisition, the Company consummates one or more sales of certain equity interests or equity-linked securities for which it receives aggregate gross cash proceeds of at least $1,500,000,000 (calculated, in the case of equity-linked securities, based on the amount of “equity credit” accorded thereto by certain rating agencies) (a “New Equity Issuance”) or (ii) if a New Equity Issuance does occur on or prior to such 90th day following the date of the closing of the Acquisition, but the outstanding indebtedness under the Loan Agreement has not been reduced to the extent specified under the Loan Agreement.

I would still be very surprised if this went to trial. The benefit of the deal to the 3 principle shareholders of Rohm and Haas will not, under any circumstances, win out over the potential job losses in this economy a forced merger would likely cause.

That is why Rohm is back at the table. Now the key is the loan extension. Dow can extend the $12.5 billion loan an additional year provided they keep their credit rating investment grade. Forcing the merger now under the original terms would void that. Also, Dow has cut the dividend and said it will raise another $3 billion through debt sales. In short they have taken away any argument Rohm has claiming Dow has not sought alternative avenues in which to complete the deal. They clearly have.

Yes, I know Rohm has an "ironclad" agreement. But in a Delaware Court, the judge decides what is "equitable" or "fair" for both parties. He is required to find a solution that is "best for all parties", employees included. He has already told Dow and Rohm to "find a business solution" more than once. That translates to: "Dow, you are going to do this deal" and "Rohm, it won't be now or under the original terms".

This is why Rohm has decided to talk, even they now realize the outcome they face in court in far less favorable than it was a month ago.

Disclosure: Long DOW

Comments

[long roh:]

Quite an amazing stretch to suggest that Rohm is somehow caving by talking with Dow. There's no basis for that supposition. It' s just as likely that the talks have been jumpstarted because Dow is the one caving. Indeed, Dow's gameplan has always been about stalling, so the fact that they got an extension on the loan suggests that they are now willing to capitulate to avoid a trial.

Since you wimped out on making a prediction, here's one: the price will be above $77 per share and the only concessions Dow will get will relate to timing.

Mar 06 04:15 PM

[UserThunder...:]

Really Todd? Again? 4 Retread columns in a row. I am finally left speechless Todd. In the face of all reality, still, you defend a lower price for ROH. Amazing.

Mar 06 05:10 PM

[jculley:]

ROH had DOW over a barrel and if those goes to trial, they'll win. Liveris isn't even functionally retarded when it comes to running a company, he gave away everything in the M&A contract.

As much as I wish DOW had an out from that horrible contract, they don't. The only hope is to convince the ROH family trust and Paulson to accept a deal at $78/share but that their proceeds would be invested into DOW to stop any credit downgrades. Anything else and DOW will go bankrupt. If they draw down that bridge loan, the credit downgrades alone will be the end.

There is one other hope. Have ROH buy DOW for $5/share in an all equity deal. Then I won't have to worry about Liveris the uberturd again.

Mar 06 06:02 PM

[PatrickD:]

Not withstanding the idiocy of DOW Mgmt, I am surprised by the confidence of ROH longs. Discussions such as the following in print and verbally are becoming more common. I understand contract law, but if you look at storm outside your window you'll see judges receiving the authority to void mortgage contracts due to the inability to pay. My guess is that the contract ROH covets will blow away in the storm and the result will be no deal or a much lower price.

"PHILADELPHIA, March 6 (UPI) -- A deal between Dow Chemical Co. (NYSE:DOW) and Philadelphia's Rohm and Haas struck in July no longer makes sense, a public policy scholar said.

Stephen Fuller, the director of the Center for Regional Analysis of the School of Public Policy at George Mason University, argued in Forbes Friday that Dow's deal to buy Rohm and Haas for $15 billion would end up with "massive layoffs in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Texas and elsewhere."

"Valued suppliers and lenders could also feel the effects, cascading the tumult into yet another series of unintended victims," he wrote.

Rohm and Haas, a leader in specialty materials technologies, filed a complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery, intending to force Dow to complete the deal. Dow has pulled back citing risks to the "viability of the combined enterprise."

With a "withering economy" as a backdrop, Dow's revenue in the fourth quarter fell nearly 25 percent to $10.9 billion, while revenue at Rohm and Haas fell 13 percent to $2 billion, Fuller wrote.

As such, the deal that "made sense six months ago … now needs a major reality check," the article said. "

www.upi.com/Business_N.../

Mar 06 06:04 PM

[vincevng:]

I think contract should be honored if the party can fulfill the obligation. Otherwise, nobody knows when is a contract enforceable anymore.

Mar 06 06:18 PM

[jculley:]

I would agree with that except for one thing. DOW very specifically allowed the M&A contract to exclude the economy and credit markets as a reason to walk away. The deal didn't make sense when they announced it, they can't use that as a defense now.


On Mar 06 06:04 PM User 371356 wrote:

> Not withstanding the idiocy of DOW Mgmt, I am surprised by the confidence
> of ROH longs. Discussions such as the following in print and verbally
> are becoming more common. I understand contract law, but if you look
> at storm outside your window you'll see judges receiving the authority
> to void mortgage contracts due to the inability to pay. My guess
> is that the contract ROH covets will blow away in the storm and the
> result will be no deal or a much lower price.
>
> "PHILADELPHIA, March 6 (seekingalpha.com/symbo...) -- A
> deal between Dow Chemical Co. (NYSE:seekingalpha.com/symbo...)
> and Philadelphia's Rohm and Haas struck in July no longer makes sense,
> a public policy scholar said.
>
> Stephen Fuller, the director of the Center for Regional Analysis
> of the School of Public Policy at George Mason University, argued
> in Forbes Friday that Dow's deal to buy Rohm and Haas for $15 billion
> would end up with "massive layoffs in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Texas
> and elsewhere."
>
> "Valued suppliers and lenders could also feel the effects, cascading
> the tumult into yet another series of unintended victims," he wrote.
>
>
> Rohm and Haas, a leader in specialty materials technologies, filed
> a complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery, intending to force
> Dow to complete the deal. Dow has pulled back citing risks to the
> "viability of the combined enterprise."
>
> With a "withering economy" as a backdrop, Dow's revenue in the fourth
> quarter fell nearly 25 percent to $10.9 billion, while revenue at
> Rohm and Haas fell 13 percent to $2 billion, Fuller wrote.
>
> As such, the deal that "made sense six months ago … now needs a major
> reality check," the article said. "
>
> www.upi.com/Business_N.../

Mar 06 06:46 PM

[jculley:]

And let's not forget that DOW allowed for the $3 million dollar a day penalty if they didn't close the deal on time. Yes, DOW not only gave ROH $78/share in an ironclad contract by also promised $100 million a month in penalties.

ROH could just drag this out in court for a few years and just take the $1.2 billion per year in penalty payments.

Mar 06 06:49 PM

[Jimmy Lathrop:]

The only way to solve the debate would be to have an 80/20 DOW/ROH balance to hedge out the arb risk. If the ROH closes, you have cash in hand like a bond and then either hold or dump the DOW shares, If it doesn't close, the DOW shares go up and the ROH share values shrink. It matters not that Rohm and Haas' market capitalization now exceeds Dow Chemicals! All that matters is that poorly executed M&A agreement in order to keep BASF away from ROH. But Liveris' main thesis has always been correct - Dow Chemical has suffered from decreasing earnings growth in a low margin enterprise and there is only so much you can chop. If you take time to read the Rohm & Haas annual statement, their divisions have good market share and are diversified to churn out cash no matter what - Morton's Salt comes immediately to mind. Dow giving up their AgScience division to get this deal done shows the desperation - if it goes to trial they will be at the mercy of the lenders.

Mar 06 11:52 PM

[HIGHWATER 888:]

It is incorrect to represent the talks between DOW and ROH as anything other than SOP for the parties in this type of litigation.

Chandler even directed the parties to attempt settlement in his original scheduling order (as required by Court Rules) so the 'spinning' of these talks as a portend of compromise is hogwash.

To go even further and say that the reason for the talks is a weakening of ROH's claim or a fear on the part of ROH that the court would simply throw out their contract for a $78 sale is incorrect (based on the known Court Rules) and is 'wrong-headed' based on any mainstream reading of the relevant law and cases and the fact that DOW is the party risking a $15+ Billion judgment starting this Monday.

Todd, once again, you have managed to torture both the facts and the law into a substance even lower than 'hogwash' at the expense of both your readers and 'investors'.

PS - The only confirmed offer of compromise is the Paulson and Haas Trust's offer to use the $78 proceeds from a closing of the Merger Agreement to purchase a preferred share issuance that might preserve the merged 'DOW' credit. Perhaps a smart move by Paulson and the Haas Trust, in that, it strips away yet another of the phoney arguments Liveris used to support his legal stunt: Namely, the idea that a jittery credit market would not support an additional capital raise by DOW.

Wrong! ROH will be able to show the Court on Monday that the $ to support both the closing and the 'DOW' credit is right there at the closing table: So real and tangible that Chandler might trip over the pile of cash on his way out of the courtroom!

This case remains a looser for DOW and its shareholders but they will be better off owning ROH than a $15 Billion judgment and a carefully nurtured case of 'buyer's remorse.'

Mar 07 03:55 PM

[Jimmy Lathrop:]

Highwater, although your comment is inartfully worded and unnecessarily insulting, you are right that the deal is going through and the settlement talks is mere window dressing and prefunctory as per the instruction of the right Honorable Chancellor. You are also correct in saying that Dow would be better off buying ROH than taking a judgment against them.

However, you are completely incorrect when you characterize Rohm & Hass position as a slam dunk that Dow has cash in hand to close this deal. I assume you know who the syndicate banks are on this financing transaction so I don't have to repeat that they would be more than happy to take that money and give it back to the government to get out of the onerous TARP requirements like transparency and better corporate governance.

For many years, Dow used the credit markets to pay out on their dividends. That is to say, instead of using operating cash to make good on their promises,they used borrowed money to pay shareholders that vaunted dividend. That particular business practice has come to an end as the credit market is unwilling to finance dividends which cannot be restated or clawed back. Dow needs some true cash generating business to provide true earnings. Just because Dow's headquarters are in Michigan does not mean they have to act like a car company and make selling debt their main product.

Finally, as a litigator I would like to point out that once two parties step into a courtroom, both of them immediately lose. A bad settlement is better than good litigation, whether you are two people arguing over a broken air conditioner or two multinational corporations warring over a merger. The Right Honorable Chancellor has signalled that it would be better to have both parties settle because speaking from experience, once the courtroom doors close, there is no telling what the guy in the black robe will do,and in fact, most attorneys and law firms take great pains to prevent one man, one decision from deciding the fate of thousands of shareholders and billions of dollars. All it takes is one Detective Mark Furman and one catchy phrase to screw up an airtight case.

Mar 07 08:07 PM

[RSAAKKS:]

In the days when judges can reduce mortgage amounts for people, when banks can write off billions, and when the govt can flush trillions down the toilet in the form of TARP or wahtever else, is it possible that a judge will restate a lower purchase price and set perhaps $40 for a share of ROH, in light of 50% market decline??? Not really legal, but these markets are not strictly legal, are they?

Mar 07 10:17 PM

[HIGHWATER 888:]

Jimmy -

IME the M&A business is not driven by either good manners or 'artful' grammar, so I'll let your witless opening salvo about 'insults' and 'artful' writing slide for the moment -- more on that later....

However, before you take your Brooklyn Law School degree for another spin outside your client base of deadbeats, DUI's and divorcees, let me check your understanding of this transaction with a few observations:

(1)The DOW bridge financing is under a "firm" commitment and the banks ("happy" or not) can't simply walk away from this loan. TARP has nothing to do with this transaction.

(2)DOW has a 100+ year history of dividend payments and --with just a few quarterly exceptions-- has always paid those dividends out of NOI (or 'profits')with a ten year average on its coverage ratio well above 1.0; DOW restored this historical dividend coverage ratio for Q1 '09 with the recent dividend cut. The fact that DOW may use CP for corporate finance does not mean that the dividend is paid with borrowed money.

(3)Neither contemplation of your hack legal platitudes nor the follies of the 'OJ' trial are likely to infulence the M&A lawyers and litigators involved in this matter. Moreover, The Deleware Chancery Court is not known to produce the type of 'Court TV Crapshoot' outcome that you seem to think of as a real risk.

PS - In the future, before you flash your second rate education in writing, you might at least take the time to insult people 'artfully' with correct grammar: FYI, the correct english usage is 'unartful' not "INARTFUL"; for a remedial explination of the OED usage see: William Safire 'Inartful Dodger' (The New York Times, 1985).

"The Park Slope Lawyer", indeed! LOL. LOL. LOL.






On Mar 07 08:07 PM Jimmy Lathrop wrote:

> Highwater, although your comment is inartfully worded and unnecessarily
> insulting, you are right that the deal is going through and the settlement
> talks is mere window dressing and prefunctory as per the instruction
> of the right Honorable Chancellor. You are also correct in saying
> that Dow would be better off buying ROH than taking a judgment against
> them.
>
> However, you are completely incorrect when you characterize Rohm
> & Hass position as a slam dunk that Dow has cash in hand to close
> this deal. I assume you know who the syndicate banks are on this
> financing transaction so I don't have to repeat that they would be
> more than happy to take that money and give it back to the government
> to get out of the onerous TARP requirements like transparency and
> better corporate governance.
>
> For many years, Dow used the credit markets to pay out on their dividends.
> That is to say, instead of using operating cash to make good on their
> promises,they used borrowed money to pay shareholders that vaunted
> dividend. That particular business practice has come to an end as
> the credit market is unwilling to finance dividends which cannot
> be restated or clawed back. Dow needs some true cash generating business
> to provide true earnings. Just because Dow's headquarters are in
> Michigan does not mean they have to act like a car company and make
> selling debt their main product.
>
> Finally, as a litigator I would like to point out that once two parties
> step into a courtroom, both of them immediately lose. A bad settlement
> is better than good litigation, whether you are two people arguing
> over a broken air conditioner or two multinational corporations warring
> over a merger. The Right Honorable Chancellor has signalled that
> it would be better to have both parties settle because speaking from
> experience, once the courtroom doors close, there is no telling what
> the guy in the black robe will do,and in fact, most attorneys and
> law firms take great pains to prevent one man, one decision from
> deciding the fate of thousands of shareholders and billions of dollars.
> All it takes is one Detective Mark Furman and one catchy phrase to
> screw up an airtight case.

Mar 08 03:31 PM

[Jimmy Lathrop:]

Highwater, your virulent response to my defense of Todd's well-written and thoughtful piece suggests that either you increase or decrease your medication, depending on your doctor's observation. I am also struck by your juxtaposition of reference to Safire's deconstruction of inartful v. unartful and the always-brilliant laugh out loud acronym which is the hallmark of the thoughtful writer - excuse me, I meant to say, internet troll.

Let us take each of your points individually, shall we?

1. Although the bridge loan is a firm commitment, if the deal is broken, then there is no commitment. To put it in terms that you would understand, think of it as when you bought your trailer home - if the contract between KB and you had been broken, Indy Mac wouldn't have had to lent you the money.

2. As for the dividend, again, using terms you can understand, you can pay your court ordered restitution by using the money selling weapons you collect playing Worlds of Warcraft or you can put it on your credit card. But its all robbing Peter to pay Paul.

3. Last, but not least, if there was such ironclad certainty of the Chancellor meting out justice as you so confidently predict, why do we have appellate courts?

I appreciate your comments as to my livelihood and what I do for a living. Feel free to forward any suggestions as to what I could do to make my profession as noble as a fine gentleman such as yourself hides behind a pseudonym googling William Safire articles in your underwear eating Froot Loops. Or you can always call me on the telephone and tell me off to my face but everyone reading this knows you would never do that because you, sir, are a coward.


On Mar 08 03:31 PM HIGHWATER 888 wrote:

> Jimmy -
>
> IME the M&A business is not driven by either good manners or
> 'artful' grammar, so I'll let your witless opening salvo about 'insults'
> and 'artful' writing slide for the moment -- more on that later....
>
>
> However, before you take your Brooklyn Law School degree for another
> spin outside your client base of deadbeats, DUI's and divorcees,
> let me check your understanding of this transaction with a few observations:
>
>
> (1)The DOW bridge financing is under a "firm" commitment and the
> banks ("happy" or not) can't simply walk away from this loan. TARP
> has nothing to do with this transaction.
>
> (2)DOW has a 100+ year history of dividend payments and --with just
> a few quarterly exceptions-- has always paid those dividends out
> of NOI (or 'profits')with a ten year average on its coverage ratio
> well above 1.0; DOW restored this historical dividend coverage ratio
> for Q1 '09 with the recent dividend cut. The fact that DOW may use
> CP for corporate finance does not mean that the dividend is paid
> with borrowed money.
>
> (3)Neither contemplation of your hack legal platitudes nor the follies
> of the 'OJ' trial are likely to infulence the M&A lawyers and
> litigators involved in this matter. Moreover, The Deleware Chancery
> Court is not known to produce the type of 'Court TV Crapshoot' outcome
> that you seem to think of as a real risk.
>
> PS - In the future, before you flash your second rate education in
> writing, you might at least take the time to insult people 'artfully'
> with correct grammar: FYI, the correct english usage is 'unartful'
> not "INARTFUL"; for a remedial explination of the OED usage see:
> William Safire 'Inartful Dodger' (The New York Times, 1985).
>
> "The Park Slope Lawyer", indeed! LOL. LOL. LOL.
>
>
>
>

Mar 09 11:17 AM

[HIGHWATER 888:]

Jimmy -

You fail to address my observations (1-3) about the facts of the DOW/ROH transaction but --looking on the bright side-- you squeal real good.... Tell us "counsellor", how does it feel to be 'bitch-slapped' by the facts?




On Mar 09 11:17 AM Jimmy Lathrop wrote:

> Highwater, your virulent response to my defense of Todd's well-written
> and thoughtful piece suggests that either you increase or decrease
> your medication, depending on your doctor's observation. I am also
> struck by your juxtaposition of reference to Safire's deconstruction
> of inartful v. unartful and the always-brilliant laugh out loud acronym
> which is the hallmark of the thoughtful writer - excuse me, I meant
> to say, internet troll.
>
> Let us take each of your points individually, shall we?
>
> 1. Although the bridge loan is a firm commitment, if the deal is
> broken, then there is no commitment. To put it in terms that you
> would understand, think of it as when you bought your trailer home
> - if the contract between KB and you had been broken, Indy Mac wouldn't
> have had to lent you the money.
>
> 2. As for the dividend, again, using terms you can understand, you
> can pay your court ordered restitution by using the money selling
> weapons you collect playing Worlds of Warcraft or you can put it
> on your credit card. But its all robbing Peter to pay Paul.
>
> 3. Last, but not least, if there was such ironclad certainty of the
> Chancellor meting out justice as you so confidently predict, why
> do we have appellate courts?
>
> I appreciate your comments as to my livelihood and what I do for
> a living. Feel free to forward any suggestions as to what I could
> do to make my profession as noble as a fine gentleman such as yourself
> hides behind a pseudonym googling William Safire articles in your
> underwear eating Froot Loops. Or you can always call me on the telephone
> and tell me off to my face but everyone reading this knows you would
> never do that because you, sir, are a coward.

Mar 09 12:42 PM

[Jimmy Lathrop:]

Highwater, it seems that not only can you not write, but you cannot read as well. I specifically addressed your responses. They are the sentences with the numbers written in front of them. Knock on your mother's bedroom door and ask her to explain my response if it is beyond your comprehension because I fear this board is above your pay grade.

Mar 09 01:21 PM

[HIGHWATER 888:]

Jimmy, poor Jimmy -

The news is just on the wire: DOW has caved and the merger will close at $78.

As I've posted in response to your pal Todd: The correct trade was long DOW and short ROH; it has proven very profitable.

The legal reasoning to support this outcome was plain for any well informed observer to see.

As they say Jimmy: 'Money talks and BS walks....'.

Hey, perhaps you and your pal Todd should start a hedge fund; that fund would, of course, be a partnership devoted to 'light comedy' and quick tax losses: You could call it 'Todd and Jimmy's Excellent Adventure'.

LOL.

PS - I'm still short DOW and long ROH although I covered half the short position at $6.32. Sweet!

On Mar 09 01:21 PM Jimmy Lathrop wrote:

> Highwater, it seems that not only can you not write, but you cannot
> read as well. I specifically addressed your responses. They are the
> sentences with the numbers written in front of them. Knock on your
> mother's bedroom door and ask her to explain my response if it is
> beyond your comprehension because I fear this board is above your
> pay grade.

Mar 09 03:15 PM

[Robert H. H...:]

I think you're right... it looks as if this isn't going to trial.

Mar 09 03:28 PM

[Jimmy Lathrop:]

Highwater, I understand it was many bonghits since you wrote your initial post, but your contention was that things were going to be a slam dunk but Dow got its extension and a caveat that they can back out if the Haas family gives them at least 2.5 billion dollars.

So using your Cheech and Chong logic, Dow showed up with a pile of cash in the courtroom and the Haas Family Trust opened their wallets and gave 2.5 billion to the company you want to short?

As I stated in my original post, all ironclad documents aside, everyone loses with a trial. Dow got a huge break and more cash - did your extensive M&A experience see that coming or was that just a hallucination huffing paint in the car wash bathroom?

Meanwhile, Dow gets a company with higher profit margins and lead position in markets it has been trying to break into for years. That's to the long term viability of the company as opposed to your day trading in your tighty whities modus operandi.

Mar 09 07:46 PM

[HIGHWATER 888:]

Jimmy, Jimmy --

Yeah, I'm sure your right: "DOW got a huge break..." (by being forced to pay $79 for shares they could have bought at $78??) "...and more cash-" (which Liveris is forced to buy with a Preferred Share class that is likely to crush the commom??).

Sounds like 'Real Big Win' for DOW ... I'm sure Todd would love to discuss it with you....

Keep digging Jimmy, you look more foolish each time you reply.

PS - I booked my final 'short' in DOW north of $14 (.)
and expect to cover tomorrow at about $5.

On Mar 09 07:46 PM Jimmy Lathrop wrote:

> Highwater, I understand it was many bonghits since you wrote your
> initial post, but your contention was that things were going to be
> a slam dunk but Dow got its extension and a caveat that they can
> back out if the Haas family gives them at least 2.5 billion dollars.
>
>
> So using your Cheech and Chong logic, Dow showed up with a pile of
> cash in the courtroom and the Haas Family Trust opened their wallets
> and gave 2.5 billion to the company you want to short?
>
> As I stated in my original post, all ironclad documents aside, everyone
> loses with a trial. Dow got a huge break and more cash - did your
> extensive M&A experience see that coming or was that just a hallucination
> huffing paint in the car wash bathroom?
>
> Meanwhile, Dow gets a company with higher profit margins and lead
> position in markets it has been trying to break into for years. That's
> to the long term viability of the company as opposed to your day
> trading in your tighty whities modus operandi.

Mar 09 08:35 PM