Section 7.3 No Solicitation; Change in Recommendation. <omitted> Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, prior to the time the RMRM Shareholder Approval, in the case of RMRM, or the TRMT Shareholder Approval, in the case of TRMT, is obtained, and subject to material compliance with this Section 7.3(d) and Sections 7.3(a)-(c), the RMRM Board (or an authorized committee thereof) or the TRMT Board (or an authorized committee thereof), as applicable, may make an Adverse Recommendation Change and/or terminate this Agreement pursuant to Section 9.1(c)(iii), in the case of RMRM, if (A) (1) a written Competing Proposal is received by it and such Competing Proposal is not withdrawn, and (2) prior to taking such action, the Proposal Recipient’s board of trustees (or an authorized committee thereof), has determined in good faith after consultation with the Proposal Recipient’s outside legal counsel and outside financial advisors, that such Competing Proposal constitutes a Superior Proposal, or (B) an Intervening Event occurs with respect to RMRM or TRMT and the RMRM Board (or an authorized committee thereof) or the TRMT Board (or an authorized committee thereof), as applicable, determines in good faith, after consultation with its outside legal counsel, that failure to effect an Adverse Recommendation Change would be inconsistent with their trustees’ duties under applicable Law of the State of Maryland; provided, however, that the RMRM Board (or an authorized committee thereof) or the TRMT Board (or an authorized committee thereof), as applicable, may not take any action contemplated by clause (A) or (B) of this sentence unless: 

64 

(1) if such action is taken in connection with any such Competing Proposal, (a) the Proposal Recipient has given the other Party at least three (3) Business Days’ prior written notice of its intention to take such action (which notice shall include the information with respect to such Competing Proposal that is specified in Section 7.3(c) as well as a copy of any proposal and any then existing drafts of the definitive agreement and other material documentation providing for such Competing Proposal), (b) the Proposal Recipient has negotiated in good faith with the other Party, to the extent the other Party wishes to negotiate, during such notice period to enable the other Party to propose in writing revisions to the terms of this Agreement such that it would cause such Superior Proposal to no longer constitute (in the good faith determination of the board of trustees of the Proposal Recipient (or an authorized committee thereof) after consultation with its outside legal counsel and outside financial advisors) a Superior Proposal, (c) following the end of such notice period, the Proposal Recipient’s board of trustees (or an authorized committee thereof) shall have considered in good faith any proposed revisions to this Agreement proposed in writing by the other Party and shall have determined that, after consultation with the Proposal Recipient’s outside financial advisors and outside legal counsel, the Superior Proposal would continue to constitute a Superior Proposal if such revisions were to be given effect, and (d) in the event of any change to the material terms of such Superior Proposal, the Proposal Recipient shall, in each case, have delivered to the other Party an additional notice consistent with that described in subclause (a) above and the notice period shall have recommenced, except that the notice period shall be at least one (1) Business Day; and (2) if such action is taken in connection with any such Intervening Event, (x) RMRM or TRMT, as applicable, has given the other Party at least three (3) Business Days’ prior written notice of its intention to take such action (which notice shall include in reasonable detail the basis for such action), (y) such Party has negotiated in good faith with the other Party, to the extent the other Party wishes to negotiate, during such notice period to enable the other Party to propose in writing revisions to the terms of this Agreement such that the failure to make an Adverse Recommendation Change would no longer be inconsistent with their trustees’ duties under applicable Law of the State of Maryland, and (z) following the end of such notice period, the RMRM Board (or an authorized committee thereof) or the TRMT Board (or an authorized committee thereof), as applicable, shall have considered in good faith any proposed revisions to this Agreement proposed in writing by the other Party and shall have determined that, after consultation with its outside legal counsel, the failure to make an Adverse Recommendation Change would still be inconsistent with their trustees’ duties under applicable Law of the State of Maryland if such revisions were to be given effect. (Page 30)

Question: Fiduciary exception to COR covenant
Category: Deal Protection and Related Provisions
Answer: "Inconsistent" with fiduciary duties