Shareholders, would you vote to reinstate Elon's pay package

[rizvend]

Ehh, if he's going to make himself too expensive, I'm sure Tesla will figure something out.

-Crissa

What's too expensive for you? ?

 

[jerhenderson]

Contracts made under false pretenses are void.

The court said it was not honestly presented to the shareholders.

I knew the board was weighted towards him in the first place; the court found they failed to include this in the materials to the shareholders. That I knew doesn't change that evidence.

I also didn't know the bank agreed that the goals were more likely than not. And that definitely wasn't in the materials given to the shareholders.

Would I approve of his old package again? Eh, probably. Would I agree to his new package? Definitely not.

-Crissa

The goals were more likely than not when the goals were seen as unachievable?

 

[Crissa]

The goals were more likely than not when the goals were seen as unachievable?

Yes. The banks that had access to Tesla's internals said those 'unachievable' (others' words) goals were instead highly likely.

That's probably the most damning part of the details the court case revealed. Yeah, most investors didn't believe Tesla would make it - but their banks who did their due diligence did. And that's unusual not to mention in the vote.

-Crissa

 

[roadrunner32]

"If Tesla loses Elon the company will lose its drive to innovate. That's what the powers that be want to happen". End of Story

 

[gooshjkc]

I haven’t read up on the ruling of the court, but again the government is getting their dirty hands in something they shouldn’t be getting hands in. As long as it’s not breaking the law. In my opinion, if the shareholders in the past made a deal with Elon they should honor it, period. Don’t start crying foul after he achieved what you they thought was an impossible task. It doesn’t matter what’s happening with the stocks right now. That wasn’t part of the deal. Furthermore, what’s going on right now is not Elon’s doing.

 

[Crissa]

I haven’t read up on the ruling of the court, but again the government is ...

...Not involved in this.

This is just a case between shareholders and the CEO. It's completely unrelated to government agencies.

If you want to argue you want to live in a world where shareholders don't have legal means to counter what they see as actions not completely fair and honest by a company or person...

...I'm not sure what to tell you.

-Crissa

 

[ÆCIII]

 

[Crissa]

That's not how deals work.

It's not a deal if it's done under false pretenses. The court saw the evidence, and ruled this deal was under false pretenses.

I do not understand why anyone would want to live in a world where dishonesty would be rewarded.

So we'll vote on the old package again, with the new information. No big deal.

-Crissa

 

[ÆCIII]

That's not how deals work.

It's not a deal if it's done under false pretenses. The court saw the evidence, and ruled this deal was under false pretenses.

I do not understand why anyone would want to live in a world where dishonesty would be rewarded.

So we'll vote on the old package again, with the new information. No big deal.

-Crissa

You didn't include the sources to support your assertions. What false pretenses? There are many of the competitive interests out there including the MSM and others, who are anti-Tesla and anti-Elon that have been stating things, but where's your irrefutable proof? If you post irrefutable proof then I'll consider it.

There's more of a systemic problem here too, where any so-called 'court' without a jury or panel where one single human can rule, is subject to emotional bias without objectivity. Tesla shareholders did not elect this judge to speak for them nor did they elect her to interfere against and disregard decisions of a super-majority shareholder vote.

If there was a real problem, many shareholders would've brought a suit, not just one that had a few shares. Anyway you're correct in that we'll vote again - but we shouldn't be having to vote again IMO.

- ÆCIII

 

[Crissa]

You didn't include the sources to support your assertions.

What is in doubt?

The court found, this is public record, we're to vote again, this is also public record.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/econom...n-musk-pay-package-tossed-by-a-delaware-judge

If you don't believe in courts, how pray tell should we deal with those who don't deal fairly with others?

-Crissa

 

[ÆCIII]

What is in doubt?

The court found, this is public record, we're to vote again, this is also public record.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/econom...n-musk-pay-package-tossed-by-a-delaware-judge

If you don't believe in courts, how pray tell should we deal with those who don't deal fairly with others?

-Crissa

Everything.

I never said I don't believe in courts.

I believe in courts when they have an impartial jury, not just one person. I realize that's sometimes not the case, but that's what I believe.

What exactly did Elon supposedly do - that didn't 'deal fairly with others' - while he was leading Tesla to become such an innovative success story and increasing the value of the stock 10X?

- ÆCIII

 

[Crissa]

What exactly did Elon supposedly do - that didn't 'deal fairly with others' - while he was leading Tesla to become such an innovative success story and increasing the value of the stock 10X?

https://www.legaldive.com/news/tesl...ear, a Delaware,letter in the proxy statement.

The court found the board didn't do their due diligence to detail the conflicts of interest on the board. Even though they put it to a general vote, the board's conflict made the basis for the vote suspect.

The court also found that the board failed to disclose the forward looking statements that their creditors saw, which showed that these benchmarks were more likely than not to be achieved. They were not stretch goals.

And the solution is... Release that information and vote again. It's not even a high cost.

Using courts without juries is how the vast majority of rulings are made, as it's much quicker and cheaper and usually, fairly even-handed. Even with a jury, there's still only one judge in the court.

-Crissa

 

[HaulingAss]

Yes. The banks that had access to Tesla's internals said those 'unachievable' (others' words) goals were instead highly likely.

That's probably the most damning part of the details the court case revealed. Yeah, most investors didn't believe Tesla would make it - but their banks who did their due diligence did. And that's unusual not to mention in the vote.

-Crissa

Meanwhile, Wall Street Brokerage houses, who have special highly paid auto analysts, to advise their high net-worth clients, were reporting that Tesla was over-valued at a split adjusted price of $13/share (because Tesla was unlikely to hit their stated goals). Some of them said the goals were pure fantasy.

Personally, I believed Elon would hit most, if not all, of the triggers in his compensation package and I was still in favor of the compensation. Because I didn't think anyone else could do it.

That's one of many places where the judge went wrong. Just because some people believed Elon could do it, doesn't mean he wasn't worth it. I would have zero confidence that Mary Barra or Jim Farley could have done what I thought Elon could do.

 

[HaulingAss]

The court found the board didn't do their due diligence to detail the conflicts of interest on the board. Even though they put it to a general vote, the board's conflict made the basis for the vote suspect.

I think it stretches the limits of credibility to think shareholders didn't know that Kimbal Musk was Elon's brother and that Elon didn't have a friendly relationship with board members. That's all pretty normal in the corporate worlld, the judge was just looking for things to justify her unprecedented ruling which was based more upon the high pay than anything nefarious.

 

[BannedByTMC]

This is in no way true.

The stock chart suggests otherwise.