Customize Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

Tech

Elon Musk launches appeal to restore $56B Tesla payday

Elon Musk kicked off his appeal to try to restore his $56 billion payday from Tesla on Tuesday, claiming a lower court judge made multiple legal errors in rescinding the record compensation.

The 2018 pay package resulted in spectacular growth for the electric vehicle maker and yet it was determined by the lower Court of Chancery to be unfair to shareholders, who voted twice to approve the plan, Musk argued.

“That counterintuitive result defies settled principles of Delaware law, sound corporate governance, and common sense,” said the opening appeal brief by Musk and the current and former Tesla directors who are defendants in the case.

Tesla shareholders voted twice to approve the $56 billion pay plan, Elon Musk argued in his appeal. REUTERS

In January 2024, Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick rescinded the pay package of stock options, calling it “unfathomable.” She said it was unfair to Tesla shareholders because the directors who approved it were beholden to Musk and Tesla withheld key information from investors before they voted to approve it.

In June, Tesla got shareholder approval for the pay package for a second time, but the judge rejected that as grounds for reversing her ruling.

The pay package had awarded Musk options to buy around 303 million Tesla shares at around $23 each if the company hit performance and valuation goals. Tesla stock closed Tuesday at $230.58.

Tesla has said creating a new pay package of similar value could result in a charge of $25 billion, making the appeal an important avenue for restoring Musk’s compensation and keeping his attention on Tesla.

Musk has said that he wants a greater stake in Tesla or he might develop products outside of the company. The appeal comes as he is dedicating time to President Trump’s government efficiency effort, known as DOGE, which has sparked demonstrations outside Tesla dealerships. The stock has fallen sharply in recent weeks.

Musk and the other defendants said Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick wrongly applied a very difficult legal standard known as entire fairness to assess the pay package. Delaware Court of Chancery

In the appeal brief, Musk and the other defendants said McCormick wrongly applied a very difficult legal standard known as entire fairness to assess the pay package.

She arrived at that standard by finding Musk, who owned 21.9% of the stock at the time the board approved the pay package, controlled the pay negotiations, according to the brief. In addition, she wrongly determined that ordinary business relationships among directors made them conflicted and she erroneously faulted Tesla’s disclosures ahead of the 2018 shareholder vote, according to the brief.

Applying the entire fairness standard amounted to granting a “license to sue” to Tesla shareholders, the brief said. The lawsuit was brought by Richard Tornetta, a Tesla investor who owned nine shares when he filed the case in 2018. The lawsuit benefits Tesla, not Tornetta, in what is known as a derivative suit.

The appeal comes as Musk is dedicating time to President Trump’s government efficiency effort, known as DOGE. AFP via Getty Images

Musk blasted the pay decision and has encouraged other companies to follow Tesla and SpaceX and reincorporate out of Delaware. A handful have left the state or said they might, including Meta Platforms, TripAdvisor and Trump’s media company.

Fears that a trickle of companies will turn into a stampede, which has been dubbed “DExit,” prompted the state’s legislature to consider amending its corporate law to better protect controlling shareholders from lawsuits.

Source link

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button