the plaintiff must overcome the general presumption of good faith by showing that the board's decision was so egregious or irrational that it could not have been based on a valid assessment of the corporation's best interests. Compare Disney, 746 A.2d at 263 (defining corporate waste as “an exchange of corporate assets for consideration so disproportionately small as to lie beyond the range at which any reasonable person might be willing to trade”) with In re J.P. Stevens & Co., Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Del. Ch., 542 A.2d 770, 780-81 (1988) (identifying bad faith by "assessing whether that decision is so far beyond the bounds of reasonable judgment that it seems essentially inexplicable on any ground other than bad faith”). 37 . See Grobow v. Perot, Del.Supr., 539 A.2d 180 (1988) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Saxe v. Brady, Del. Ch., 184 A.2d
holding that a waste determination depends on whether what the corporation has received is so inadequate in value that no person of ordinary sound business judgment would deem it worth that which the corporation has paid  holding that when determining prejudice under the objective test relevant considerations include 1 whether the extrinsic evidence was received by the jury and the manner in which it was received 2 whether it was available to the jury for a lengthy period of time 3 whether it was discussed and considered extensively by the jury 4 whether it was introduced before a jury verdict was reached and if so at what point during the deliberations and 5 whether it was reasonably likely to affect the verdict considering the strength of the governments case and whether the governments case outweighed any possible prejudice caused by the extrinsic evidence holding that it is peculiarly the jurys function to pass upon what would meet the requirements or satisfy the mind of the theoretical reason able ordinary person which the law gives to the jury as a standard by which to measure human conduct holding that a statute is not unconstitutionally vague if it gives a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited so that he may act accordingly holding that whether a person has a disability under the ada is an individualized inquiry