Prof. Stephen Bainbridge provides a "mini-law review article" here, that examines the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in Revlon v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, 506 A.2d 173 (Del.1985),  and its progeny. The scholarly review of cases and commentary also describes, in light of the recent Ryan and Lear decisions of the Delaware Chancery Court,  what types of factual situations should–and should not–trigger what  is often referred to as "Revlon-duties" when a company is for sale, although even that label is subjected to close scrutiny in the treatment given to the topic.

One of the quotes from the lengthy post (that includes citations to many cases and the professor’s own writings), is the following tidbit that I arbitrarily selected:

Once we understand that Revlon is really about dealing with conflicts of interest and director motives, we can begin to define the borders of Revlon-land.