Connect with us

Published

on

A Delaware judge has sided with Tesla shareholders who filed a lawsuit claiming that Elon Musk unjustly secured a $55 billion CEO compensation plan. The plan is now voided by the court.

It’s unclear what will come out of this unique situation where Musk could potentially have to give back billions of dollars worth of Tesla shares.

In 2018, Tesla shareholders voted for Elon Musk to get a historic new CEO compensation package that could be worth $55 billion for the executive if Tesla achieved remarkable growth in valuation and profits, which it did.

However, some shareholders argued that Musk unfairly secured this extremely generous compensation plan through misleading shareholders about the fact that the plan was being put together by an independent board.

They filed a complaint in court in Delaware. The case went to trial in 2022, but it took a long time for the judge to give her decision.

The case came back into the news lately as Musk discussed another potentially historical CEO compensation plan at Tesla as he seeks to get 25% voting control over the company. His stake in Tesla is currently down to about 13% (~18% if he ends up being able exercise some stock options left from his compensation plan) after he sold tens of billions worth of Tesla stocks to buy Twitter.

Musk said that Tesla was waiting on the judge’s decision before moving ahead with the new compensation plan

The decision finally came today. Delaware Chancery Court Chief Judge Kathaleen St. J. McCormick sided with the shareholders who filed the complaint:

This posttrial decision enters judgment for the plaintiff, finding that the compensation plan is subject to review under the entire fairness standard, the defendants bore the burden of proving that the compensation plan was fair, and they failed to meet their burden.

Musk briefly commented on the judgment, which he is most likely going to appeal, on X:

In short, the judge found that “Musk controlled Tesla” at the time the compensation package was put together:

The collection of features characterizing Musk’s relationship with Tesla and its directors gave him enormous influence over Tesla. In addition to his 21.9% equity stake, Musk was the paradigmatic “Superstar CEO,” who held some of the most influential corporate positions (CEO, Chair, and founder), enjoyed thick ties with the directors tasked with negotiating on behalf of Tesla, and dominated the process that led to board approval of his compensation plan. At least as to this transaction, Musk controlled Tesla.

An interesting caveat to the decision is that Musk’s lawyers had the option to shift the burden of proof that the compensation package was unfair to the plaintiff, but only if the package approved by “fully informed vote of the majority of the minority stockholders.”

Of course, Tesla shareholders voted for the plan, but the judge found that “the defendants were unable to prove that the stockholder vote was fully informed because the proxy statement inaccurately described key directors as independent and misleadingly omitted details about the process.”

Therefore, an important part of this case relied on the judge agreeing with the plaintiff that the board members behind the package were not “independent”.

Here’s how the judge describes how it wasn’t even clear who was negotiating on Musk’s behalf versus Tesla’s behalf:

The process leading to the approval of Musk’s compensation plan was deeply flawed. Musk had extensive ties with the persons tasked with negotiating on Tesla’s behalf. He had a 15-year relationship with the compensation committee chair, Ira Ehrenpreis. The other compensation committee member placed on the working group, Antonio Gracias, had business relationships with Musk dating back over 20 years, as well as the sort of personal relationship that had him vacationing with Musk’s family on a regular basis. The working group included management members who were beholden to Musk, such as General Counsel Todd Maron who was Musk’s former divorce attorney and whose admiration for Musk moved him to tears during his deposition. In fact, Maron was a primary gobetween Musk and the committee, and it is unclear on whose side Maron viewed himself. Yet many of the documents cited by the defendants as proof of a fair process were drafted by Maron.

After hearing from both sides, the judge found that there was “no meaningful negotiation over any of the terms of the plan.”

Musk’s lawyers tried to argue that the CEO made some “concessions” as part of negotiations, but the judge didn’t buy it.

In this litigation, the defendants touted as concessions certain features of the compensation plan—a five-year holding period, an M&A adjustment, and a 12- tranche structure that required Tesla to increase market capitalization by $100 billion more than Musk had initially proposed to maximize compensation under the plan. But the holding period was adopted in part to increase the discount on the publicly disclosed grant price, the M&A adjustment was industry standard, and the 12-tranche structure was reached in an effort to translate Musk’s fully-diluted-share proposal to the board’s preferred total-outstanding-shares metric. It is not accurate to refer to these terms as concessions.

One of the main arguments from Tesla shareholders who are against this lawsuit is that “it was good for everyone”. Yes, Elon gets 6% more of Tesla, but Tesla gets $600 billion more in valuation.

The judge had an answer to this argument:

At a high level, the “6% for $600 billion” argument has a lot of appeal. But that appeal quickly fades when one remembers that Musk owned 21.9% of Tesla when the board approved his compensation plan. This ownership stake gave him every incentive to push Tesla to levels of transformative growth—Musk stood to gain over $10 billion for every $50 billion in market capitalization increase. Musk had no intention of leaving Tesla, and he made that clear at the outset of the process and throughout this litigation. Moreover, the compensation plan was not conditioned on Musk devoting any set amount of time to Tesla because the board never proposed such a term. Swept up by the rhetoric of “all upside,” or perhaps starry eyed by Musk’s superstar appeal, the board never asked the $55.8 billion question: Was the plan even necessary for Tesla to retain Musk and achieve its goals?

The story is still developing. I will update with more details as I continue going through the lengthy decision, which you can read below.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Report: Ferrari were SO impressed by the Xiaomi SU7, they bought one

Published

on

By

Report: Ferrari were SO impressed by the Xiaomi SU7, they bought one

With its tire-blistering acceleration and record-setting performance, the Xiaomi SU7 Ultra has been getting attention throughout the auto industry, impressing everyone who’s seen it. That “everyone” now seems to include the OG supercar brand, itself.

CarNewsChina posted pictures from a Weibo user that reportedly show a Xiaomi SU7 Ultra exiting the storied Ferrari factory in Maranello, Italy. According to a Chinese blogger going by 西米露在博洛尼亚 (which seems to translate to “Sago Dessert in Bologna”), the prancing horse brand is actively benchmarking the Chinese hypercar for its own upcoming EV.

The SU7 Ultra was definitely coming from inside Ferrari’s facility. After verification, we learned this specific vehicle was officially purchased by Ferrari for testing, and the development of their next-generation electric platform.

西米露在博洛尼亚

Yet another Chinese auto blogger, 苏黎世贝勒爷, claims that Ferrari representatives visited Xiaomi headquarters last year, allegedly to discuss the joint development of next-generation high-performance EV motors.

The Xiaomi SU7 Ultra made its debut last year, promising 1,548 hp, sub 2.0-second 0-60 mph times, and a top speed well over 200 mph – all at a price lower than a Tesla Model S Plaid or Porsche Taycan Turbo GT. The car sold out almost immediately after it was unveiled, racking up some 50,000 orders almost overnight.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

The new electric benchmark


Xiaomi SU7 Ultra at Fiorano; via Weibo user Piniluoshan.

In the automotive world, “benchmarking” is a process in which car companies systematically tear down each others’ competitive products to compare everything from sound insulation, vehicle ride and handling, component materials, and even manufacturing methods against their own or against other industry leaders. The goal is to evaluate performance, cost, quality, and other key metrics, effectively figuring out “where they stand” in the market.

If Ferrari really did buy an SU7 to benchmark it against their own upcoming electric supercar, it’s more than just a curiosity – it could mean that the highest tiers of automotive innovation have shifted from West to East. Maybe forever.

Featured image via Xiaomi; sources throughout the post.


If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them. 

Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Chevy teases new Bolt w/NACS, front fascia redesign, rear brake lights

Published

on

By

Chevy teases new Bolt w/NACS, front fascia redesign, rear brake lights

We’re finally getting our first teases of the upgraded 2027 Chevy Bolt, built on GM’s battery/motor platform formerly known as Ultium. So far, so good for the vehicle, which will be revealed later this Fall.

Chevy took to social media today to tease the 2027 Chevy Bolt, saying, “You asked, we listened. The #ChevyBolt is back and better than ever. More this fall. 👀”

Chevy ended the original Bolt program with the 2023 model, which was loved by a loyal group of customers (including myself). Some of the major gripes, including charging speed and rear brake lights, already look to be addressed. Also, a new more aggressive fascia is debuting.

Electrek’s take

GM has done an incredible job keeping the 2027 Bolt under wraps. It will be the first GM vehicle with a native NACS port after the Cadillac Optiq-V, which we spied in Seattle last week.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Hopefully, the new Bolt will have improved charging speeds over and above the 54kW that previous Bolts adhered to. One possible downgrade is that the old Bolt’s amazing wireless CarPlay/Android Auto system will likely be replaced by GM’s move to Android’s built-in experience. For a few years, the Chevy Bolt was the most affordable long-range EV, and it won our 2022 Electrek car of the year for its versatility and price.

I would, of course, like to see the new Bolt as a hot hatchback, but GM CEO Mary Barra has hinted that it will likely take more of the EUV’s SUV form factor. Things like AWD options, SuperCruise, pricing, power and range are yet to be revealed, but stay tuned to Electrek for the latest on Bolt developments.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Tesla tops another ADAS test, Hyundai tops range tests, and Texas gets BESS

Published

on

By

Tesla tops another ADAS test, Hyundai tops range tests, and Texas gets BESS

On today’s test-acular episode of Quick Charge, it’s a new day and a new Chinese ADAS test for Tesla to conquer – but this one’s got a LOT more pedestrian carnage to parse through! We’ve also got some great e-bike deals from Retrospec and a bladder-busting Hyundai.

Today’s episode is brought to you by Retrospec – the makers of sleek, powerful e-bikes and outdoor gear built for everyday adventure! To that end, we’ve got a pair of Retrospec e-bike reviews followed up by the updated Hyundai IONIQ 6 with nearly 350 miles of range from its updated long-range battery. With that, Hyundai now has the longest range Korean EV on the market, while Texas is adding megawatts of battery energy storage to beef up its troubled grid, and it’s doing so faster and cheaper than ever before.

PlusQuick Charge listeners can get an extra 10% off the price of their next awesome e-bike by using code ELECTREK10 at retrospec.com!

Prefer listening to your podcasts? Audio-only versions of Quick Charge are now available on Apple PodcastsSpotifyTuneIn, and our RSS feed for Overcast and other podcast players.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

New episodes of Quick Charge are recorded, usually, Monday through Thursday (most weeks, anyway). We’ll be posting bonus audio content from time to time as well, so be sure to follow and subscribe so you don’t miss a minute of Electrek’s high-voltage daily news.

Got news? Let us know!
Drop us a line at tips@electrek.co. You can also rate us on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, or recommend us in Overcast to help more people discover the show.


If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them. 

Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending