The ruling was mostly not about board's competence but based on judge's opinion that during original vote the shareholders weren't properly informed about things.
Given that re-approval happened at similar levels of shareholders support, that judgement seems incorrect.
And yes, it is unprecedented as in "there's no similar ruling in Delaware history".
And I stress "similar", not the "board competence" idea you made up.
As you yourself noted, the precedent in Delaware is that judges stay away from second guessing boards or shareholders and this seems like an activist ruling, not something based on past Delaware rulings.
Given that re-approval happened at similar levels of shareholders support, that judgement seems incorrect.
And yes, it is unprecedented as in "there's no similar ruling in Delaware history".
And I stress "similar", not the "board competence" idea you made up.
As you yourself noted, the precedent in Delaware is that judges stay away from second guessing boards or shareholders and this seems like an activist ruling, not something based on past Delaware rulings.