It seems like here, just like in Revlon, there was an auction for the company and in Revlon the court held that the Revlon company had a duty to maximize profit by letting the auction continue but here even though Paramount kept increasing their price, why was Time allowed to not give in? couldn't Revlon have said that the Forstman offer was better too?
Appellate court judgement said state of the art evidence is not admissible. But supreme court decision said defendant may present state of the art evidence. Then, supreme court affirmed the appellate court decision? I do not understand the flow of logic.
Become a member and get unlimited access to our massive library of
law school study materials, including 735 video lessons and 4,900+
practice questions in 1L, 2L, & 3L subjects, as well as 16,500+ case
briefs keyed to 223 law school casebooks.