The case "eBay Domestic Holdings, Inc. v. Craig Newmark, et al." in Delaware's Court of Chancery does not support the assertion at all. What the two corporate officers did wrong was to dilute a minority stakeholder's shares for an impermissible reason under Delaware law. One permissible reason to justify such dilution would be if the change was "reasonable to promote shareholder value" (page 49). The two officers could not prove that their actions were reasonable, nor could they prove any other permissible reason, so they lost the case.

At bottom, the major question in that case was whether the corporate officers can conspire with the majority stakeholders to harm a minority stakeholder. It was about two corporate officers that were acting out of self preservation (page 59):

Jim and Craig simply disliked the possibility that he Grim Reaper someday will catch up with them and that a company like eBay might, in the future, purchase a controlling interest in craigslist.

The minor question (whether shareholder value would be promoted) could have been answered in the affirmative and those two would still have lost the case, because Delaware law also doesn't allow harming a stakeholder, violating their fiduciary duty to eBay in this case (page 61):

If Jim and Craig were the only stockholders affected by their decisions, then there would be no one to object. eBay, however, holds a significant stake in craigslist, and Jim and Craig’s actions affect others besides themselves.

The court only looked at the minor question to appeal-proof the ruling, because the two corporate officers had tried to match their argument to an earlier DE Supreme Court ruling.

For the purposes of my point in this discussion, the distinction doesn't matter.

I disagree. Drawing the correct conclusion from the wrong cause is pure sophistry (ie "arbitrary, inauthentic, or deceptive styles of reasoning" -Wikipedia). It is intellectually dishonest to state a conclusion but then decline to support your basis, dismiss your own basis as irrelevant, and then circularly assert that the conclusion stands on its own.