Initially, the only parties to the trials were the supervisors and the BPG-2. Subsequently, the NSEs intervened by mutual agreement. Later still, the other development companies that owned the 168 Acres next to the 51 Acres of BPG-2 (which together include the 219 acre lots mentioned in the settlement agreement) intervened with judicial authorization.3 Straw purchase is sometimes used in large purchases such as buying houses and cars where the real buyer has bad credit and cannot obtain financing. The real buyer promises to make all payments and can compensate the straw buyer for the use of his credit. In its opinion, the Court of Justice found that the terms of the settlement agreement had resolved all issues related to the underlying land-use process as well as the supervisory authorities` concerns about further developments. The Court of Justice indicated that there was a strong judicial preference for voluntary dispute resolution. However, if, as here, a settlement agreement results in contractual zoning, releases a private institution from zoning by-laws in the long term, and deprives neighboring landowners of the procedural protection imposed by the legislature, the agreement is contrary to Pennsylvania law. The developers responded that the approval of the settlement agreement by the court of justice was correct and justified. They argue that there is a strong judicial policy in favor of parties who voluntarily settle disputes, and Pennsylvania law allows courts to allow settlement agreements that will resolve existing and future land use disputes by creating alternative area restrictions, provided the public can participate in settlement agreement proceedings. . . .