Delaware Judge Orders Tesla to Revoke Musk’s $56 Billion Pay

Delaware Judge Orders Tesla to Revoke Musk’s $56 Billion Pay \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ A Delaware judge reaffirmed her decision to revoke Elon Musk’s $56 billion pay package, ruling it was the product of sham negotiations with Tesla directors lacking independence. The court also awarded $345 million in legal fees to the plaintiff’s attorneys, rejecting their unprecedented $5.6 billion request. The ruling underscores legal limits on conflicted-controller transactions and has significant implications for corporate governance.

Delaware Court Overturns Musk’s Pay Package: Quick Looks

• Key Ruling: Judge Kathaleen McCormick ordered Tesla to rescind Elon Musk’s 2018 pay package, citing flawed processes.
• Compensation Breakdown: The $56 billion package depended on Tesla meeting aggressive stock performance milestones.
• Attorney Fees: Plaintiff lawyers were awarded $345 million instead of their $5.6 billion demand.
• Shareholder Votes: A second vote ratifying the pay package failed to sway the court.
• Musk’s Reaction: Musk criticized the ruling on X, asserting that shareholders, not judges, should decide.
• Legal Precedent: The decision reinforces that shareholder votes cannot override flawed negotiations in conflicted-controller transactions.
• Historical Comparison: The legal fee award is the second largest in U.S. history, behind the Enron case.
• Corporate Implications: The ruling highlights the importance of independent decision-making in executive compensation.

Deep Look: Delaware Judge Strikes Down Musk’s Pay Package, Awards $345 Million in Legal Fees

In a landmark ruling, Delaware Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick reaffirmed her decision requiring Tesla to revoke Elon Musk’s 2018 multibillion-dollar pay package. The ruling, delivered on Monday, highlighted the flawed processes that led to the creation of the unprecedented compensation plan and addressed an equally contentious dispute over attorney fees.

The judgment not only casts a shadow over Musk’s leadership at Tesla but also raises critical questions about corporate governance and the boundaries of executive compensation.

The Controversial Pay Package

Elon Musk’s 2018 compensation plan was heralded as one of the largest executive pay deals in corporate history, tied to Tesla achieving ambitious performance milestones. If met, the package carried a potential maximum value of $56 billion, subject to fluctuations in Tesla’s stock price.

The lawsuit, initiated by a Tesla shareholder, alleged that Musk orchestrated the deal in a manner that bypassed fair oversight. McCormick’s January 2024 ruling found that Tesla’s board of directors, tasked with negotiating the plan, lacked independence from Musk. The court determined that the pay package resulted from sham negotiations designed to benefit Musk disproportionately.

In June 2024, Tesla shareholders ratified the 2018 pay package for a second time, overwhelmingly voting in favor despite McCormick’s ruling. Defense attorneys argued this reaffirmation demonstrated shareholder confidence in Musk’s leadership and justified maintaining the package.

Why the Court Rejected the Ratification Argument

McCormick was unpersuaded by the defense’s claims, stating that shareholder votes alone cannot validate a conflicted-controller transaction. “The large and talented group of defense firms got creative with the ratification argument, but their unprecedented theories go against multiple strains of settled law,” McCormick wrote in her 103-page opinion.

The judge also noted that the proxy statement provided to shareholders before the vote contained material misstatements, further invalidating its potential to ratify the flawed compensation plan.

Musk’s Reaction and Public Response

Musk, known for his outspoken views, expressed his frustration with the ruling on X, the social media platform he owns. “Shareholders should control company votes, not judges,” he wrote, signaling his disagreement with the court’s intervention.

Supporters of Musk argue that his leadership has driven Tesla’s meteoric rise, warranting the extraordinary pay package. Critics, however, see the case as a necessary check on the concentration of corporate power and the influence of conflicted controllers.

Attorney Fees: A Bold Ask and a Compromised Award

A separate aspect of the case involved the legal fees requested by the plaintiff’s attorneys. Arguing that their work prevented the dilution of Tesla stock and secured significant financial benefits for shareholders, the attorneys sought a record-breaking $5.6 billion in fees, calculated based on Tesla’s stock price at the time of McCormick’s January ruling.

McCormick acknowledged the attorneys’ contributions but found the fee request excessive. “In a case about excessive compensation, that was a bold ask,” she noted, ultimately awarding $345 million.

The reduced fee is still among the largest legal awards in U.S. history, second only to the $688 million granted in litigation stemming from the collapse of Enron in 2008. McCormick emphasized that while the methodology for calculating the fees was sound, the award needed to avoid creating a windfall for the attorneys.

Implications for Corporate Governance

The ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of independent oversight in corporate decision-making. By invalidating Musk’s pay package, the court reinforced the principle that shareholder approval cannot alone rectify flaws in governance processes, particularly when conflicts of interest are present.

The decision also underscores the judiciary’s role in curbing excessive executive compensation. Corporate leaders, no matter how influential, must adhere to established legal and ethical standards when negotiating pay deals.

Broader Consequences for Tesla and Musk

For Tesla, the ruling marks a significant legal and reputational setback. While Musk remains the driving force behind the company’s success, the case raises questions about the transparency and accountability of Tesla’s board. Shareholders, despite their strong support for Musk, may push for reforms to prevent similar controversies in the future.

The rescinded pay package also casts a spotlight on Musk’s broader business practices and his ability to navigate legal and regulatory challenges.

What Comes Next?

With Tesla ordered to revoke Musk’s pay package and attorneys receiving a fraction of their requested fees, the case sets a strong precedent for future corporate governance litigation. Musk and Tesla’s legal teams are expected to explore appeals, but the ruling sends a clear message about the limits of executive power and the importance of maintaining fair corporate practices.

As Tesla continues to innovate and lead in the electric vehicle market, the fallout from this case may prompt greater scrutiny of its governance structures and the independence of its board.

More on US News

Delaware Judge