Robert M. Bass Group, Inc. v. Evans

How courts have described this case

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

• critiquing banker‘s analyses that included ―at least one assumption that is incorrect, and upon others that are highly questionable‖
• crediting testimony that 80-83% of eligible shares tend to vote in contested matters
• crediting testimony that 80–83% of eligible shares tend to vote in contested matters
• crediting testimony that 80–83% of eligible shares tend to vote in contested matters
• proposed restructuring was an attempt to entrench current management rather than obtain an economically superior price for the shareholders
• even if directors propose a reasonable alternative they may not “force shareholders to accept an economically inferior transaction ... while precluding them from considering an economically superior one ... under Unocal the directors are obligated to give shareholders a choice”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).