>The only successful challenge along this line of argumentation I am aware of is Craigslist, and that required the founder to explicitly state their intentions

>The only successful challenge along this line of argumentation I am aware of is Craigslist, and that required the founder to explicitly state their intentions to harm the company for rather esthetic considerations. The original case that is usually cited about this "maximize shareholder value at all costs" concept was Dodge v. Ford Motor Co, in which the argument was that Ford was trying to turn the company, at least temporarily, into a non-profit, and avoid giving any profits to shareholders, arguably in order to make the positions of significant minority shareholders (eg, the Dodges) worthless and deprive them of capital to start a competing company. There's a significant difference between maximizing shareholder value at all costs, and intentionally trying to obliterate shareholder value in order to harm the shareholders.