Originally Posted by forgot to bid

I think in either case you'd be looking at a windfall. I believe you could easily argue each merger is different than the last and the fair and equitable solution to prevent such windfalls is determined by the circumstances of the individual merger.

To say previous precedent is the end all is to say there is no need for courts or such things as sentencing guidelines. It'd be like saying all murders are equal and 20 years is your blanket sentence. But we know its one thing for a child to kill an abusive father and an abusive father to kill his child.

That's my argument.