Did City Council breach its fiduciary duty by agreeing to sell DIA in Grand Bargain?

[majohnson]

City Council members are elected by Detroit voters. It is the interests of Detroit citizens that Council must take care to protect. I don't need to second guess the outcome on my first cut of analysis. Here, the procedure was flawed in a fundamental way, valuation. The valuation need not be perfect. Perhaps initially only valuing 6000/60000 of the art pieces.

Had the court empowered someone to represent Detroit in the proceedings with fiduciary duties only to Detroit, receiver, that person would have breached by failing to conducting a valuation.

Hermod:
1. I believe the DIA has regional appeal as a cultural attraction.
To more directly answer your question, that it remain is an ideal outcome.
2. I believe the DIA has a positive effect on businesses and landlords in that area. The regional DIA tax and philanthropy do or could make the DIA cost-free to the City of Detroit.
3. The Grand Bargain transfer of the DIA to a charitable trust is different from allowing a regional authority to operate the DIA. Also 'giving away' assets to a friendly third person during a bankruptcy while retaining access seems fraudulent.

BKGuy: The context is three part
a, The overall conversation was about how the circumstances of an attorney's hiring controls whether he is to represent a single employee's interests, a layer of management, a division of the corporation, or the corporation as a whole and how it differs/conflicts.
b, The limited circumstances when an attorney has a literal fiduciary duty.
c, That due to the circumstances of hire, [[not hired as Detroit's lawyer) and appointment by the state and perhaps by the statutes, Orr's duties are very likely to the state as a whole.