Tesla CEO Elon Musk was once again denied the $56 billion pay package by Delaware Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick, who previously ruled the sum should not be paid to Musk.
Tesla shareholders voted after the initial rejection of the massive pay package that was awarded to Musk for achieving several tranches related to company growth to award the CEO with the money.
McCormick once again denied the pay package. This comes 11 months after the first rejection, which occurred in January.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s $56bn pay package decision to come before end of year
The pay package was challenged by shareholder Richard J. Tornetta, who owned only a handful of Tesla shares. McCormick ruled in January that Musk’s “unfathomable sum” was unfair to shareholders.
However, it appears the weight of one shareholder and one chancellor outweighs that of a majority of Tesla shareholders who voted overwhelmingly this past Summer to award Musk the money once again.
However, on Monday, Chancellor McCormick once again said Musk should not be awarded the sum.
Tesla responded:
“A Delaware judge just overruled a supermajority of shareholders who own Tesla and who voted twice to pay @elonmusk what he’s worth. This ruling, if not overturned, means that judges and plaintiffs’ lawyers run Delaware.”
Perhaps what is most baffling about the ruling by McCormick is the fact that Tesla will be forced to pay $345 million in fees to lawyers who represented Tornetta and other shareholders. The lawyers, at one time, requested more than $5.5 billion from the case, and they wanted it in the form of Tesla stock.
Those lawyers said in a statement (via The New York Times):
“We hope that the chancellor’s well-reasoned decision will end this matter for the shareholders of Tesla.”
They also said that they are looking forward to defending the judgment if Tesla decides to appeal. The company said it will be appealing McCormick’s decision.
Vivek Ramaswamy calls Elon Musk’s Tesla pay package situation ‘a threat to capitalism’
It also seems Chancellor McCormick did not believe the shareholder vote and subsequent board vote were not a reasonable way to reinstate the pay package.
She said:
“Were the court to condone the practice of allowing defeated parties to create new facts for the purpose of revising judgments, lawsuits would become interminable.”
Need accessories for your Tesla? Check out the Teslarati Marketplace:
Please email me with questions and comments at joey@teslarati.com. I’d love to chat! You can also reach me on Twitter @KlenderJoey, or if you have news tips, you can email us at tips@teslarati.com.
