top | item 39197917

Court of Chancery Opinion: Richard Tornetta vs. Elon Musk

34 points| estreeper | 2 years ago |courts.delaware.gov

15 comments

order

TheCaptain4815|2 years ago

Why would a judge decide something so monumental when they could have had a shareholder vote? I wonder if this will shift incorporating to Texas.

LegionMammal978|2 years ago

From pages 2 and 3:

> Delaware law allows defendants to shift the burden of proof under the entire fairness standard where the transaction was approved by a fully informed vote of the majority of the minority stockholders. And here, Tesla conditioned the compensation plan on a majority-of-the-minority vote. But 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.

georgeg23|2 years ago

So what happens now? Assuming the Delaware Supreme Court upholds the decision, will a new ex post facto pay package be negotiated?

Kimm0n0|2 years ago

You can really do that, as the uncertainty from that time is gone.

phantomathkg|2 years ago

What's it about? When I clicked all I got is "The requested URL was rejected. Please consult with your administrator."

CoastalCoder|2 years ago

I'm guessing that's something at your end, or it was temporary. The link works for me.

leetgirl83|2 years ago

The guy that sued and just made Elon Musk lose 55 Billion dollars only had:

NINE SHARES OF TESLA STOCK.

Kimm0n0|2 years ago

55 Billion dollars worth less stocks also. So PE just went down!

throwup238|2 years ago

Shareholder primacy, baby!

firecall|2 years ago

The system works!