> Economically, there's little difference.

There's a difference economically, because the derivative of marginal utility with respect to income is (generally) negative. In other words, utility is concave with respect to the origin[0].

This makes a difference because, in many circumstances, people are more willing to insure against loss than they are to insure against gain.

It also makes difference legally, as well as financially, because assets can be used to collateralize loans, etc.

[0](That's the first derivative of marginal utility, which is the second derivative of the income-utility function).

> There's a difference economically, because the derivative of marginal utility with respect to income is (generally) negative. In other words, utility is concave with respect to the origin[0].

Sure.. many economic models make this simplifying assumption. But each man defines his own utility functions, by their very nature.

>It also makes difference legally, as well as financially, because assets can be used to collateralize loans, etc.

But how will that make a difference legally in this court case ?