A shareholder with 9 shares screws Musk out of 55 Billion

[engineering]

Musk misrepresented easy goals as stretch goals to secure a shareholder vote.

Name for me another US automaker CEO that met those goals over that time period.

If they were easy, you should be able to point to another case.

How so engineer?

Seems to me - a non-legal expert - like heads I win, tails I win.

If he failed to meet the goals in the plan he would have received ZERO compensation.


I was against the compensation deal when it happened, but I also wasn't a shareholder, because I was not a believer in "Tesla is going to accomplish explosive growth, avoid devastating manufacturing problems and become a huge profitable company."

 

[engineering]

The other 50% is that he proposed his own compensation package and then got the board to tell investors it was proposed by an independent compensation analyst."

So your claim is that Elon wrote the entire compensation plan himself with no input?
And that these other people never received this document and distributed it to anybody?

In the real world an army of lawyers would have started with an initial concept from someone like Elon and then turned it into an actual detailed legal document. I have no problem believing that a "compensation analyst" would have made significant contribution. But that's mostly beside to point...

The point is... it is possible for more than one person to propose the same thing. If I say "Bob should buy that house" and then Bob says "I should buy that house" it is valid to say that either one of us or both of us is proposing it.

It would be ridiculous for a judge to step in and void the sale of the house to Bob because I mentioned the idea first.

 

[Nighthawk]

That compensation was fucking ridiculous. Where is that money supposed to come from? From profits and shareholders' earnings.

This is how Mr X deals all the time with other people´s monies. Governmen subsidies included. Mr X finds always a tit to milk...

 

[newwurldmn]

You should read the case notes, the trial notes, review the evidence, and review prior cases. And then sue to have the judge disbarred. You seem to convinced about this ruling yet have provided no arguments other than “that’s a lie” and “show me…”

The judge's job is to rule in accordance with the law and established precedence.

Show me another case where a shareholder vote has been overturned, based on vague allegations brought by what appears to be a sock puppet.
(Someone can only buy nine shares but they can afford to sue? Really?)

 

[SunTrader]

....

I was against the compensation deal when it happened, but I also wasn't a shareholder, because I was not a believer in "Tesla is going to accomplish explosive growth, avoid devastating manufacturing problems and become a huge profitable company."

So, you like many folks nowadays, are just aggrieved.

Get over it.

 

[Pekelo]

He really wants to move the incorporation:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/e...-to-vote-on-reincorporating-in-texas-3747b9c9

 

[SunTrader]

Elon Musk bashed by heavy metal drummer who cost him $56 billion

https://news.yahoo.com/elon-musk-bashed-heavy-metal-170806527.html

Tom Hals
Thu, February 1, 2024 at 12:08 PM EST·3 min read

AI Safety Summit in Bletchley

By Tom Hals

WILMINGTON, Delaware (Reuters) - leaving the page." data-wf-tooltip-position="bottom" style="position: relative;">Elon Musk suffered one of the biggest legal losses in U.S. history this week when the Tesla CEO was stripped of his $56 billion pay package in a case brought by an unlikely opponent, a former heavy metal drummer.

Richard Tornetta sued Musk in 2018, when the Pennsylvania resident held just nine shares of Tesla. The case eventually made its way to trial in late 2022 and on Tuesday a judge sided with Tornetta, voiding the enormous pay deal for being unfair to him and all his fellow Tesla shareholders.

Tornetta could not be reached for a comment and his attorney declined to comment.

Until Tornetta's case, Musk prevailed in a string of trials accusing him of defamation, of breaching his duty to shareholders and of violating securities laws.

Based on his online presence, Tornetta seems to have more of an interest in creating audio gear for car-customizing enthusiasts than going after corporate excess and malfeasance.

He has posted light-hearted videos about gadgets he has created or mishaps, including describing how he torched his eyebrows.

Tornetta also turned up in videos drumming at the legendary former New York club CBGB with his now-defunct metal band "Dawn of Correction", which described its sound as "a swift kick to the face with a steel-toed work boot."

On social media, fans of Tesla and Musk seemed to find the case a travesty of justice and speculated about Tornetta's intentions and political affiliations, asking how an investor with such miniscule holdings could wield such power.

Delaware corporate case law is full of cases bearing the names of individual investors with tiny shareholdings who wound up shaping America's corporate law.

Many law firms that represent shareholders keep a stable of investors they can work with to bring cases, says Eric Talley, who teaches corporate law at Columbia Law School. They might be pension funds with a broad range of stock holdings but they are also often individuals like Tornetta.

The plaintiff signs paperwork to file the lawsuit and then generally gets out of the way, says Talley. The investors don't pay the law firm, which takes the case on contingency, as the lawyers did in the Musk case.

Tornetta benefits from winning the case the same way other Tesla shareholders benefit: saving the company billions of dollars that a subservient board of directors paid to Musk.

Business groups have long criticized cases brought by individuals as an indication of potentially abusive litigation. Delaware 10 years ago was plagued with lawsuits led by retail investors owning a few shares challenging merger deals. The cases were often quickly resolved with meaningless settlements that always included payments to the attorneys bringing the cases. Delaware judges and lawmakers eventually reined in the practice.

Experts said people like Tornetta are vital for policing boardrooms. Lawmakers and judges have long wanted large investment firms to lead such corporate litigation since they are better equipped to keep an eye on their lawyers' tactics. But experts said fund managers do not want to jeopardize relationships on Wall Street.

So it was up to Tornetta to take on Musk.

"His name is now etched in the annals of corporate law," Talley said. "My students will be reading Tornetta v Musk for the next 10 years."

(Reporting by Tom Hals in Wilmington, Delaware; Editing by Noeleen Walder and David Gregorio)

 

[engineering]

Looks like someone is really mad that I'm applying things like obvious logic and basic understanding of the English language here,

So, you like many folks nowadays, are just aggrieved.

Get over it.

Says the guy who apparently didn't even understand the most basic concepts of this deal.

You literally said, "Seems to me - a non-legal expert - like heads I win, tails I win."
Except there was a possible scenario in which Musk would receive no compensation under that deal.

And then sue to have the judge disbarred.

Suing a shady court in a shady court is generally a waste of time. What you think they're not going to double down? An given you own views, you appear to be a person who is much more in the camp of "the government should be able to destroy anyone I don't like without constraint".

Practically what you'll see will be that people will move their companies out of Delaware. As CEO, would you really want to take the chance of having you pay voided by some wing-nut judge?

 

[engineering]

He really wants to move the incorporation:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/e...-to-vote-on-reincorporating-in-texas-3747b9c9

It's the obvious move.
Someone steeping in after the facing and tossing a shareholder vote is huge.
Say he want to make an acquisition, or spin off a company... Even if we gets it by a full shareholder vote, right not he has to worry that some wing-nut in Delaware will void the deal.

Maybe after this, the feds will go back to harassing him over not hiring foreigners to work on ITAR controlled technology where it is literally illegal to do so.

 

[newwurldmn]

Looks like someone is really mad that I'm applying things like obvious logic and basic understanding of the English language here,



Says the guy who apparently didn't even understand the most basic concepts of this deal.

You literally said, "Seems to me - a non-legal expert - like heads I win, tails I win."
Except there was a possible scenario in which Musk would receive no compensation under that deal.



Suing a shady court in a shady court is generally a waste of time. What you think they're not going to double down? An given you own views, you appear to be a person who is much more in the camp of "the government should be able to destroy anyone I don't like without constraint".

Practically what you'll see will be that people will move their companies out of Delaware. As CEO, would you really want to take the chance of having you pay voided by some wing-nut judge?

You aren't applying any logic. You are angry and you don't even know the facts of the case. After you read the depositions, the court decision, and the precedents cited, then I would love to hear your arguments and you might convince me.

In this thread, the burden of proof is on your to prove the judge was a wing-nut.