Using the IRAC Method, analyze this case:

Full-screen Snip Part Two: In addition to running her restaurant, Michelle also serves as president and one of a group of six directors of the Good Night Hotel Corporation (GNHC), which owns and operates a handful of local hotels. Acting in her capacity as president of GNHC, Michelle recently convinced the corporation's board of directors to approve the purchase of several paintings from Michelle's private art collection, which the corporation was going to place in the lobbies of the corporation's hotels. The paintings were worth only about $500 apiece, but Michelle sold each of them to the corporation for between $5,000 and $10,000. Before each sale, Karl, another member of the board of directors, asked Michelle whether the sale price was fair, and Michelle always replied that she had assessed the value of the painting to be sold to the corporation and that the sale price reflected the painting's fair market value. Karl had no idea that the prices Michelle was charging for the paintings were so dramatically inflated. Each time, the corporation's board of directors relied on Michelle's assurances, undertook no further inquiry, and approved the purchases. Eventually, one of the shareholders, who happened to be an art expert, saw one of the paintings in the lobby of one of the hotels. After asking questions about where it came from and how much it cost, the shareholder concluded that something was wrong, and she enlisted other shareholders of the corporation to join her in filing a shareholder derivative suit against the directors of the corporation. The shareholders seek money damages from the directors for breach of their fiduciary duties as directors of the corporation with regard to the transactions involving the paintings. Although Michelle is not very well-versed in legal matters, she has heard of something called the "business judgment rule," and she wants to know whether this rule will protect her and/or the other directors from liability in these circumstances. Please provide your answer to this question, again citing the legal rules that support your conclusions (for both Michelle and the other directors) and explaining how the rule applies to the facts of this case