[deeths]

Sorry, it should have read: "Because the CEO represents the interests of the shareholders".

While the CEO is not (absent other roles) a representative of the shareholders (as you pointed out), there is a legal duty of loyalty to act in the best interest of the shareholders.

So while not a representative of the shareholders, the CEO is always responsible for representing the interests of the shareholders.

As you stated, those goals aren't necessarily related to the stock price or maximizing revenue. However, if the interest of the shareholders is something other than those goals, the CEO still has a legal fiduciary responsibility to act as a representative of the shareholder interests that do exist.

[j_baker]

I suppose that's true in principle. But in practice, the CEO has to be pretty flagrantly acting against the shareholders' interests (embezzling, "cooking the books", etc) to be held legally liable. The case law here is predicated on the belief that "judges are not business experts", and I agree with that sentiment. Courts shouldn't be telling company management what is and isn't in their shareholders' best interests. It's up to corporate management to make that determination, and that's the way it should work.