There has been a silly amount of drama in the lead up to teslaThe annual shareholders meeting will be held on Thursday. The company will hold a vote to “re-ratify” the $56 billion compensation package awarded to Elon Musk in 2018, which was shot down by a Delaware Court of Chancery judge earlier this year. There will also be a vote on whether the company will change its incorporation location from Delaware to Texas.
Some of Tesla’s biggest boosters are calling on the company to “retail army” of shareholders will vote in favor of both, but with special focus on Musk’s compensation. It is not clear what tangible impact will have the result of any of the votes. But Tesla executives and employees (including some who basically never post on social media) are simply begging for votes.
Through lengthy and impressive posts, Spaces audio meetings, podcasts, and myriad other calls to action, attention has been focused on the idea that Musk is owed this compensation because he met the goals agreed upon at the beginning. “A deal is a deal”, Tesla aware to its CEO’s X social media platform.
Yet almost no one is discussing the content of Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick’s January ruling and its dominant theme: Musk has so much influence over Tesla and its board that there was no substantive negotiation when the company reached this deal with him in 2017. .2018.
Instead, there have been accusations from the Tesla faithful that she is a “radical activist judge” – accusations that are easily dismantled as you read his examination of the evidence in the case.
So, some homework! For the Tesla fans, haters, shareholders, and curious, here it is again, embedded below. McCormick’s 201-page opinion is a thorough but lucid read. It’s worth going over it again before the vote takes place. At the very least, it’s an introduction to the legal battles that are sure to continue after Thursday’s vote.
Opinion after Tornetta’s trial against Musk by Sean O’Kane on Scribd