I think the dispute hinges on what it means to be "doing well". In most companies, you can at least all point to the same thing, even if you disagree on how you

I think the dispute hinges on what it means to be "doing well". In most companies, you can at least all point to the same thing, even if you disagree on how you get there: creating shareholder value. But in this case, the company was doing things that could be seen as good from a shareholder value perspective, but the board has a different priority. It seems they may think that the company was not working on the right mission anymore. This is an unusual set up, so it's not that surprising that unusual things might happen!