True, they aren't obligated. Another thing to note is that most executives get paid with equity more than cash. So it is in their self interest to have the stock stay steady or go up and not take a nose dive.
That's a myth. There's no legal requirement to "place shareholder value over all else". There are situations where one has to prefer value over other considerations, but that applies to acquisitions and such, not daily business conduct. E.g. see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-the-m...
and many other places.
True, but not as meaningful as it sounds. As long as you are taking actions with good intentions, you're on solid ground. And you can justify almost any actions under employee satisfaction (which reduces hiring expenses) or goodwill (which reduces advertising expenses.)
They aren't (as explained by others), but while it's a myth the fact itself isn't that significant - the corporations don't have to maximize shareholder value and yet they mostly tend to. How this happens? bduerst explained it nicely upthread.
Focusing on the first two elements I mentioned is the best way to accomplish that. Shareholders should be saying 'please ignore us and focus on the other stuff'.
It's in most corporation's charters, and I believe that it's contract law that requires them to follow the charter -- and the alternative is to face shareholder lawsuits, especially if it's a sudden and controversial deviation that they don't have a really solid explanation for.
