Yes! Dodge v. Ford is a tough one because Ford explicitly announced that he was using the company's money to advance his own philanthropic aim. That's essentially theft: it's the company's money, not his.

However, as long as management is running the company as a company (and not, say, the director's personal slush fund), the courts give them incredibly wide latitude. They're won't second-guess whether it was "correct" to prioritize long-term growth or short-term profit-taking, as long as either is vaguely in the company's interests.

A parallel case, Shlensky v. Wrigley, has absolutely bonkers facts. Wrigley wouldn't install electric lights at his ball field, clearly due to some...idiosyncratic...beliefs about how baseball "ought to be played." However, unlike Ford, Wrigley left open the possibility that this was also a business decision too: perhaps changing the neighborhood would drive people away, or the lights would cost too much to operate. Consequently, the court found in his favor even though one gets the sense they were not totally convinced it was a sensible business decision.

Longer thread with references and quotes here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23393674

And the VC world is full of examples where shareholder want the company to prioritize marketshare or riding certain hypes or other activities that increase company valuation within the shareholder's investment horizon. In most VC funded startups maximizing revenue would be a violation of your fiduciary duty

"Shareholder primacy" implies that at any time a decision needs to be made that puts the interests of shareholders against those of anyone else, the shareholders' should take priority. Since pricing affects revenue and revenue affects shareholders in some way, pricing should be structured such that revenue is maximized. So it doesn't need to be the maximum price possible, but it does need to be whatever price yields the greatest revenue.