• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
 
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––xROHM AND HAAS COMPANY,Plaintiff,v.THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY andRAMSES ACQUISITION CORP.,Defendants.::::::–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––xC.A. No. 4309-CC
PLAINTIFF’S ANSWERING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’MOTION TO DISQUALIFY WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ FROMCONDUCTING DISCOVERY AGAINST DOW AND EXAMINING DOW WITNESSES
OF COUNSEL:WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ51 West 52nd StreetNew York, New York 10019(212) 403-1000ROHM AND HAAS COMPANYRobert A. Lonergan100 Independence Mall WestPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania 19106(215) 592-3000Dated: February 9, 2009CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLPCollins J. Seitz, Jr. (No. 2237)Henry E. Gallagher, Jr. (No. 495)David E. Ross (No. 5228)Bradley R. Aronstam (No. 5129)The Nemours Building1007 North Orange StreetP.O. Box 2207Wilmington, Delaware 19899(302) 658-9141
 Attorneys for Plaintiff Rohm and HaasCompany
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.........................................................................................................iiiPRELIMINARY STATEMENT....................................................................................................1STATEMENT OF FACTS.............................................................................................................3A. Wachtell’s prior representation of Dow..................................................................3B. Wachtell’s representation of Rohm and Haas.........................................................4C. Dow engages in
ex parte
contacts with the FTC in blatant violation of itsobligations under the Merger Agreement...............................................................6D. The nature and scope of the present litigation........................................................8ARGUMENT................................................................................................................................. 9DOW’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY ISBOTH UNFOUNDED AND UNTIMELY....................................................................................9A. Dow bears a very heavy burden on this motion......................................................9B. Dow is not a current Wachtell client.....................................................................10C. Wachtell’s representation of Rohm and Haas does not violate Rule 1.9..............151. The nature and scope of the prior representation of Dow and of thecurrent litigation are entirely distinct........................................................162. Wachtell received no confidences from Dow that it could use toDow’s detriment in this proceeding..........................................................16D. Wachtell’s continuing representation of Rohm and Haas will notundermine the fairness and integrity of the proceedings, but hamstringingRohm and Haas’s ability to use its chosen counsel will.......................................19E. Dow’s delay in raising the purported conflict is in itself a sufficient basisfor denying this motion.........................................................................................22i
 
 1. Dow acquiesced in and consented to Wachtell’s representation of Rohm and Haas by failing to express an objection until afterlitigation began..........................................................................................232. Dow cannot excuse its failure to make a timely objection byclaiming that it was presented with a
 fait accompli
..................................24CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................25-ii-
of 00

Commenting has been disabled.