Tesla’s upcoming annual shareholder meeting on Thursday has sparked considerable buzz and controversy. Key issues on the agenda include a vote to reaffirm Elon Musk’s $56 billion compensation package from 2018, which was invalidated earlier this year by a Delaware Chancery Court judge. Additionally, shareholders will decide on relocating Tesla’s incorporation from Delaware to Texas.
Advocates within Tesla’s community are urging the company’s “retail army” of shareholders to support both proposals, emphasizing Musk’s entitlement to his compensation package due to meeting agreed-upon targets.
Please tag your fund manager, bank or broker on the original post. Not here, open the one below. https://t.co/bEO1hCzt9u
— Ale𝕏andra Merz (@TeslaBoomerMama) June 9, 2024
Despite the fervent calls for votes across various platforms, little attention has been given to the substantive aspects of Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick’s January ruling. Her decision underscored Musk’s considerable influence over Tesla and its board, highlighting the lack of robust negotiation during the original agreement in 2017-2018.
While some have labeled McCormick as a “radical activist judge,” a deeper dive into her 201-page opinion reveals a meticulous examination of the case’s evidence.
Kevin O'Leary discussing consequences for Delaware and the decision of the radical activist judge that rescinded Elon Musk's (shareholder approved) 2018 compensation planpic.twitter.com/uLzj6k13ii
— Tesla Hype (@TeslaHype) May 24, 2024
Interested parties, whether fans or critics of Tesla, shareholders, or curious onlookers, are encouraged to revisit her detailed analysis before the vote. This reading not only serves as preparation for Thursday’s meeting but also sets the stage for ongoing legal debates that are expected to follow regardless of the meeting’s outcome.
