Rohm and Haas Co. v. Dow Chemical Co.

2009 WL 445609 (2009)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Rohm and Haas Co. v. Dow Chemical Co.

Delaware Court of Chancery
2009 WL 445609 (2009)

  • Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Play video

Facts

In 2007 and 2008, the law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz (the firm) represented Dow Chemical Co. (defendant) in connection with terminating two executives and responding to a rumored takeover bid. The firm sent Dow its final bill for those services in June 2008 and did not provide Dow with further legal services. Meanwhile, in mid-2008 the firm began representing Rohm and Haas Co. (plaintiff) opposite Dow in negotiations of a confidentiality agreement and merger. Dow retained other attorneys who represented it during the merger negotiations and did not object to the firm representing Rohm. When Dow failed to complete the acquisition by the agreed deadline, Rohm sued Dow to enforce the merger. The firm represented Rohm in the lawsuit. Dow moved to disqualify the firm from conducting discovery against it and deposing Dow witnesses, claiming that Dow believed it was still a client of the firm and that the firm could not represent both Dow and Rohm at the same time. Dow also claimed the firm implicitly promised that it would represent Rohm in negotiations only and discontinue if litigation arose. In the alternative, Dow argued that the firm previously representing Dow in matters substantially related to the merger effectively prevented the firm from representing Rohm in the litigation without Dow’s consent. Dow contended that the resulting conflict of interest disqualified the firm from representing Rohm under the Delaware Rules of Professional Conduct and because the firm had access to sensitive information as Dow’s prior counsel. The firm countered that Dow was no longer its client and that it had not gained sensitive information from Dow during its prior representation.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Chandler, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 735,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership