At the risk of oversimplifying, my take is that although the Court "raised questions" about whether the deal specifics were reasonable, it did not definiively conclude that they are not. It was more of a concern that the shareholders who voted "didn't have fair enough information". The basis for the rejection (i.e. insufficient MS opinion, lack of independent opinion, etc.) are potentially curable by IOC. Since Hession already showed he will choose financial-gain over morality, and since his public/professional reputation is likely shot regardless of the outcome of this deal, I expect him to try his best to placate the Court and then "re-tee" essentially the same deal. His ethical sunk-cost will keep him on the same path. Also, there is little incentive for XOM to voluntarily offer another 500M until/unless they determine that Hession can't get this accomplished on his end.
So, to me, the key is not the Courts as much as it is the fund managers who voted "yes" the first time around. Can Phil use all of this publicity to get any of them to change their votes? XOM likely thinks IOC will eventually "do it right" in the Court's eyes (from a procedural standpoint) and thus eventually get approval. XOM will likely only feel the deal is truly threatened (and thus feel compeled to consider paying more) if they hear that the shareholders won't approve the re-teed deal.