Billion-dollar pay “deal” between Elon Musk and Tesla rejected by judge
Stephanie GauthierAlthough Tesla approved the payment to Elon Musk, a Delaware judge ruled otherwise, rejecting the gigantic billionaire payment for a second time.
Refused by a judge
The billionaire and now close advisor to Donald Trump, the richest man in the world, has once again had his $51 billion payment in Tesla shares rejected by a judge.
The value
These shares, which have almost doubled in value, are now valued at over $100 billion.
A second time
Although Tesla approved this payment to Elon Musk, a Delaware judge ruled otherwise, rejecting the gigantic billionaire payment for a second time.
The same payment
The judge had already rejected the same payment last January.
A major shareholder
She then sided with a major shareholder in the lawsuit, who challenged the package, arguing that Musk had failed to prove that the compensation plan was fair.
Interest
In this second refusal, the judge pointed out that, although the package had been ratified by a majority of shareholders (over 84%), excluding the shares of Musk and his brother Kimbal, this did not prove that Musk’s colossal remuneration was in the shareholders’ interests.
Not justified
It found that, despite this ratification, the compensation was not justified.
Legal arguments
She therefore asserted that even if the majority of shareholders had approved the plan, this was not enough to justify a remuneration that the judge considered unfair or inappropriate for shareholders, and the legal arguments put forward by the defense were not sufficiently solid.
The salary package
While Tesla’s Board of Directors argued that it was essential to maintain Musk’s salary package to keep him involved in Tesla’s management, the judge found that the Board was too close to the CEO.
With himself
She pointed out that Elon Musk himself acknowledged that he had “negotiated only with himself” his own compensation.
The final reward
She added that, while Musk was entitled to some compensation, the final reward was not fair to other shareholders.