[Directors are] employed to [further the corporation’s purpose of creating profit for the stockholders]. The discretion of directors is to be exercised in the choice of [how to create that profit]. [Their discretion] does not extend to a change [in the goal of creating shareholder profit], to the reduction of profits, or to [withold profits from] stockholders in order to devote them to other purposes.
TLDR: Their purpose is to create profits for shareholders and investors. They may choose how to do that, but they have an obligation to not intentionally reduce the corporation’s profits or take actions that would deprive shareholders from accessing the profits.
The implication of that highlights exactly how disgusting corporate and industry lobbying is.
Increasing expenses to sway politicians on some topic is, in itself, an expense that runs contrary to the goal of increasing profits. Therefore, the only way it would be justifiable to spend money on lobbying is if there’s a genuine belief or expectation that it will result in a return on investment that exceeds the amount spent.
I’m not a lawyer, but this is how I read it:
TLDR: Their purpose is to create profits for shareholders and investors. They may choose how to do that, but they have an obligation to not intentionally reduce the corporation’s profits or take actions that would deprive shareholders from accessing the profits.
So instead of “legally required to maximize shareholder profits” it’s “don’t intentionally lose or hide shareholdermoney.”
The implication of that highlights exactly how disgusting corporate and industry lobbying is.
Increasing expenses to sway politicians on some topic is, in itself, an expense that runs contrary to the goal of increasing profits. Therefore, the only way it would be justifiable to spend money on lobbying is if there’s a genuine belief or expectation that it will result in a return on investment that exceeds the amount spent.