In a landmark decision, a Delaware judge has ruled against a $56 billion compensation package that Tesla had awarded to Elon Musk in 2018, declaring the agreement invalid due to a lack of evidence proving its fairness.
Chancery Court Judge Kathaleen McCormick ruled on January 30, siding with shareholder Richard Tornetta, who challenged the pay package as excessively generous and improperly approved.
Case against Tesla’s compensation plan stirs debate
This case has stirred significant discussions regarding corporate governance and compensation practices within major public corporations.
The lawsuit, initiated by Tornetta five years ago, scrutinized the conditions under which Musk would receive 12 tranches of stock options, contingent upon Tesla reaching specific market capitalization and operational targets.
Tornetta argued that these targets were not as challenging to meet as initially presented, suggesting that Musk was poised to receive a substantial portion of the package with relative ease.
Read More: Senate and House GOP’s looming clash over border bill
Dispute over Tesla board’s independence in Musk’s compensation plan ruling
The controversy primarily centered around the characterization of Tesla’s board as independent, which Tornetta disputed, claiming that Musk himself orchestrated the compensation plan.
Judge McCormick concurred with these concerns, stating in her 200-page decision that Tesla’s board failed to “prove that the compensation plan was fair.”
She further criticized the process that led to the approval of Musk’s compensation, highlighting Musk’s significant influence over the company and its board, which compromised the fairness and independence of the compensation agreement.
Judge’s verdict on Musk’s pay plan impacts Tesla’s market value
“In the final analysis, Musk launched a self-driving process, recalibrating the speed and direction along the way as he saw fit. The process arrived at an unfair price,” McCormick wrote, emphasizing the flawed nature of the approval process.
The ruling mandates that Tornetta and Musk’s legal representatives collaborate in drafting an order that reflects the judge’s decision, addressing any outstanding issues, including legal fees, to finalize the case at the trial level.
This decision sent Tesla’s shares down approximately 3 percent in after-hours trading, reflecting the market’s reaction to the uncertainty generated by the ruling.
Also Read: Israeli undercover forces dressed as women raid West Bank hospital, killing three militants
Musk’s reaction and public interest in Tesla compensation case ruling
Musk, known for his outspoken presence on social media, reacted to the decision by advising against incorporating businesses in Delaware and proposing a poll on whether Tesla should relocate its state of incorporation to Texas.
The poll attracted significant attention, garnering over half a million votes, indicative of the public’s interest in the case and its outcomes.
Greg Varallo, representing Tornetta, hailed the decision as a victory for Tesla investors, emphasizing the potential benefits of eliminating the dilutive impact of Musk’s “absurdly outsized pay package.”
Ruling challenges executive compensation norms
The ruling represents a critical moment in corporate governance, highlighting the importance of accountability and fairness in executive compensation.
Despite the clear verdict, the possibility of an appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court remains, leaving the door open for further legal proceedings that could alter the outcome of this high-profile dispute.
This case not only challenges the norms of executive compensation but also sets a precedent for how corporate boards and their superstar CEOs navigate the complex landscape of corporate governance and accountability.
Read Next: Mayorkas criticizes impeachment as ‘politically motivated accusations and personal attacks’
