shareholders should just sell and buy stock in companies who's ceo's pay package is agreeable to them.
That, however, would be ESG investing (specifically, the G part), which we're supposed to not like anymore, because we only like free markets where shareholders can't do that.
Just propose a retro-active package identical to the first with the court ruling attached. After it passes, problem solved. Bob Wilson
Maybe that's what the detractors are trying to achieve. The system would prefer Bob Lutz run the place.
I would hate to see Musk leave Tesla. At this point though, I would like to see Musk step down from both the Board, and the CEO position. He should be in the engineering lab, not the boardroom.
Not a fan of Elon Musk - Not crazy about Tesla ( but wish them well as they are an American company). Tend to agree with this person: Cathie Wood Blasts Delaware Court's Move To Rescind Elon Musk's $56B Tesla Pay As 'Un-American,' Tells How Billionaire 'Shocked And Delighted' Shareholders (msn.com) “I believe the Delaware court decision, forcing #TSLA to void the March 2018 vote on Elon Musk's performance-based pay package, is un-American, an assault on investor rights, and an insult to the Board of Directors of one of the most stunningly successful companies in US history,” Strongly feel this judge needs to pull their head out of their a _ _ and let the Company alone. It is a successful Company and can decide what is best for itself.
not a fan of musks social media activity and many of his political thoughts. but i could care less as regards tesla and his other companies. stifling american innovation is a long held tradition in our juris prudence system which has allowed other countries to dominate us, forcing american buyers to more and more foreign products.
i'm not sure he would accept the roll. he's a total control freak and may leave to begin other business ventures. i don't see tesla surving without him at this point, maybe someday as a mature company. what wall street wants is someone who cow tows to their quarterly requirements, innovation be damned. and many would like ev's to just go away. which they will if musk isn't leading the way.
The company is also the shareholders, and the evidence is that they weren't given the full account of how the package amount was determined when they got to vote.
I haven't read the judge's decision. As a shareholder though, I was aware of the BOD and who was on it, was given an option to vote on the package and do have the impression that the judge basically said "your shareholder vote doesn't matter".
I haven't read the judge's decision. As a shareholder though, I was aware of the BOD and who was on it, was given an option to vote on the package and do have the impression that the judge basically said "your shareholder vote doesn't matter".
My statement was based on summaries from those that did read it. It's 201 pages of the judge justifying the decision, so it is a bit more saying your vote doesn't matter.
I used to have a really hard time understanding their stock performance. The thing that helped the most was to compare them to other American-owned, personality-driven luxury brands. Ralph Lauren and Vera Wang, to name a few.
'Leave the company alone' -- should that be the judge's decision, to let Tesla ignore Delaware's laws on corporate governance? Or should that be the decision of Delaware's state Legislature, which sets the laws governing publicly traded companies that choose to incorporate in that particular state? If the corporate brats don't like the laws of one state, they are free to go shopping for other states with different laws. Though they will still have to conform to the laws of the country they operate it in, and to the rules of the particular stock exchange they want to be listed on. ... and if they want still more freedom, then they should keep ownership private, not go public.
Keep in mind it was a shareholder that filed the suit in the first place, with the support of other shareholders.
Support? No legal or financial support. The shareholder who filed suit owned 9 shares of stock. No other shareholders joined the suit. His lawyer argued, among other things, that the benchmarks that needed to be made were too easy. Tell that to Nikola, Rivian, or Fisker, or any other startup in the auto industry.
A company's articles of Incorporation will state whether ratification needs to be 51% .... or ⅔ of shareholders or whatever. Not one crybaby holding 9 shares. .
Tesla has answered that question - to hell with Delaware and that judge. They are reincorporating in Texas. Where were Delaware and that judge when Tesla was building their value with innovation, risk and hard work? They have no sweat equity in that company. Who would shareholders rather have running the Company - Delaware and the Judge or Mr Musk and Tesla Board of Directors? Certainly respect the Law , Judges and Delaware but they have no business involving themselves in this discussion nor Tesla's business model. I don't care for Mr. Musk and have no interest in Tela (I support all American Companies and wish Tesla only the best).
