Official Committee of Subordinated Bondholders v. Integrated Resources, Inc. (In Re Integrated Resources, Inc.)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that some courts also permit an objecting party to rebut the business judgment presumption by showing “waste of corporate assets”
• noting that bidding procedures negotiated by a debtor are reviewed under the deferential “business judgment” standard, under which such procedures and arrangements are presumed valid
• holding that “Delaware business judgment rule principles” from Smith v. Van Gorkom, 488 A.2d 868 (Del. 1985) and Aronson v. Lewis, 473 A.2d 805 (Del. 1984) “have vitality by analogy in Chapter 11, especially where, as here, the debtor … is a Delaware [c]orporation.”
• “Courts are loath to interfere with corporate decisions absent a showing of bad faith, self- interest, or gross negligence.”
• not citing § 363(b) but applying the business judgment rule to a break-up fee arrangement
• the court heard expert testimony that the industry standard on average is 3.3 percent. The court ultimately accepted a breakup fee that was 1.6 percent of the purchase price

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).