In a shareholder lawsuit, a Delaware judge struck down Elon Musk’s 2018 $55 billion dollar pay package.
This will resolve true if the ruling is overturned on appeal and Elon keeps the original package, or if after the lawsuit is resolved the board/shareholders of Tesla approve a replacement package worth more than $27.5 billion. This will resolve false if the package is not replaced.
If there is a future oriented package that also purports to replace 2018 compensation, I will use my best judgement to resolve this market.
https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/30/24056177/elon-musk-tesla-tornetta-55-billion-pay-package-rejected
1,000
3.00Tesla CEO Elon Musk loses bid to get $56 billion pay package reinstated
Published Mon, Dec 2 20244:56 PM EST on CNBC.com
AIUI vote has little effect. It may allow Elon/Tesla to go back to court with some reason to try to reopen judgement/appeal. Not sure what the court will do if the company seems to have reaffirmed that yes they do want to agree that package.
.
That Tesla value went down on announcement of judgement should give the judge pause for thought. Is that judgement helping tesla shareholders? No it is making them worse off by distracting Elon from what he should be doing for Tesla towards sorting out his pay package.
Alternatively, above might not cross judge's mind or have little effect. Judge may think that the vote was more or less do Tesla Shareholders want to make their CEO extremely miffed (toned down version) about pay package such that the affirmation vote means nothing and judge can and should just tell Tesla to try again and go and think about a more suitable package.
.
If musk gets only 75% of the $56 B or less then I think you could perhaps argue the case was merited and worth the effort of bringing.
If he eventually gets 95%-99.9% of it then I think I would conclude the case was not really merited but Musk settled just to bring legalities to an end. Use of legal process as a pain in the neck that you really shouldn't get away with.
Between those amounts then the merit is somewhat less clear to judge.
So I would have thought that this question should perhaps have set the threshold at somewhere more like 75% to 95% of the $56 B. However other might have different views.