Opinion ID: 2558869
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Reconsideration Motion

Text: Seidman sought reconsideration. In respect of Seidman's attacks on the approval and implementation of the 2005 Plan, the Chancery Court reiterated that [p]laintiff failed to persuade this Court that no person of sound business judgment would have found that the benefits conferred were completely unreasonable based on the services performed by the directors. (emphasis in original). Again referring to the expert proofs tendered by defendants, it repeated that, during conversion, the most important goal is to align [the interests of d]irectors and officers with those of its current shareholder[s] and that the award of option and stocks put those directors and officers in the same position as the shareholders. Referencing again the expert testimony tendered by defendants and admitted at the trial, it noted that `you want the bank to perform because you want the value of the shares to increase and provide investment opportunities.' It therefore did not find that the [2005 Plan] constituted `waste.' [10]