Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I should probably look this up somewhere on the net, but here goes anyway: What was the basis for Elon not receiving his stock award?

As I understand it, he and the stock holders made an agreement some years ago, that entitled Elon to a certain amount depending on how the stock performed. It turns out the stock performed really well, entitling Elon him to a really, really big bonus. I get that this is somewhat weird given that people are being fired and that Tesla is currently not able to sell their cars at the same rate as they are being produced. But is this enough to withhold the bonus? Are there some aspects of the agreement that Elon did not adhere to? From my point of view it looks like Elon was simply able to make a really good deal with the shareholders.




A judge found that the bonus was awarded basically by Elon to himself, so it was invalidated. Technically it was awarded by the board, but at a time when Elon had extreme control over them.


To quote from the judge's judgement:

https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=359340

> Musk controlled only 21.9% of Tesla’s voting power, so he lacked mathematical voting control...

> Defendants sought to prove otherwise, and they generally contend that the stockholder vote was fully informed because the most important facts about the Grant—the economic terms—were disclosed...

Basically, the shareholders voted on the grant while having a full understanding of the economic terms. It was awarded by musk, to musk, with approval of the shareholders and (supposedly overly friendly) board.

It really makes it sound like the judge might have been wrong based on the sequence of events we have now, which is:

1. The shareholders approve a stock grant on economic terms

2. A judge says "If the shareholders knew everything, they wouldn't have approved that"

3. The shareholders, now knowing everything, approve it again despite it having almost no benefit now

That really really makes it sound like the shareholders did in fact want to approve it in 1, and so the information they didn't know wasn't all that important, was it?

I know it's a different set of shareholders then and now, but still...


> A judge says "If the shareholders knew everything, they wouldn't have approved that"

That's not what the judge said. It's more like "this award didn't follow the requirements for such an award for a corporation in Delaware". It doesn't at all depend on some prediction about what the shareholders would or wouldn't do in other hypothetical scenarios.


Tesla stocks have a lot of hype especially from Cathie of Ark. Nearly everywhere from spams to YT to FB, you have a lot of "ads" to promote Tesla. Anything EVs good news straight away related to "Tesla" even if it is about Toyota or BYD bad news, seems like Tesla getting credit instead. At current stage I am convince somekind of coordinated and multi layered pump and dump is happening. We are at the "pump" stage. Anyone doing a decent research will see Tesla has near no moat unlike Apple, Nvidia or Microsoft. No battery factory. No owning any lithium mine. No gpu productions. Factories depend heavily on China grace. High churn of employees. Solarcity gone. Autopilot rebranded as FSD which is not even reaching 3.0 after half a decade of promises. CyberTruck design are joke. Any trainees working in BMW or BYD can design a better CyberTruck. Gigafactory? Hahaha...you got a chance take a look BYD factories. Even Taobao warehouses will make Amazon warehouse look like medieval setup. There are Chinese factories that look more like Star Trek than ANY gigfactory. Just ride the hype part and make sure you do the dump earlier before the actual dump happening by the elites.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: