Dow Chemical Company owned Destec Energy, Inc. (Destec), which owned Destec Engineering, Inc. (DEI). Dow decided to try to sell Destec. AES Corporation wanted to buy Destec’s international assets, including DEI. DEI’s sole asset was a contract to design and build a power plant in the Netherlands. Because Dow would not sell Destec’s international assets alone, AES paired with NGC Corporation to make a joint bid. NGC bought all outstanding Destec stock from Dow through a merger agreement, and then AES bought all of Destec’s international assets, including the DEI stock, from NGC under an asset purchase agreement. During the course of the negotiations, Dow and Destec orally represented what it would cost to build the power plant, but these representations were not reflected in the written documents. Most of the documents in the transaction contained no reliance clauses, that is, clauses that attempted to limit the information on which the parties to the document could legally rely. For example, the merger agreement between NGC and Dow contained two pages of representations and warranties but stated that other than those, “neither Dow nor any other person makes any other express or implied representation or warranty on behalf of Dow.” Unfortunately for AES, the Netherlands plant deal proved far more costly than represented, and AES lost $70 million on the plant. Section 29(a) of the 1934 Act provides that “any condition, stipulation or provision binding any person to waive compliance with any provision of this title or of any rule or regulation thereunder, or of any rule of an exchange required thereby shall be void.” Does AES have a valid claim under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b– ? [AES Corp. v. Dow Chemical Co., 325 F.3d 174 (3d Cir. 2003).]