5 ms·

This is completely ignoring the contents of the ruling. I can only imagine deliberately so.

enslavedrobot 2y ago
The ruling invalidated the pay package because it said the board did not disclose that it wasn't independent enough. This is a technicality. Every investor in Tesla knew this at the time (except for the activist investor and legal team that wants to steal 5 Billion from Tesla). The pay package was just and fair given the deliverables. Any CEO who promises to 10x a company's revenues and market cap could easily get the same deal from shareholders. The fairness of the deal is underlined by the fact that 99.9% of observers scoffed at it ever coming true. As a long term investor in Tesla (3500 shares @16$) I have seen thousands of negative posts like yours (Tesla sentiment has been ~95% negative over that entire time). In 2018 the sentiment on the stock was lower than it is even today. Many people mocked us investors as cultists, morons, suckers, rubes etc. They were wrong. I'm absolutely going to vote in favour of the compensation package in fulfillment of the deal which made me a millionaire.
- free_bip 2y ago
  A $56 billion pay package is wholly unreasonable for anything less than solving world hunger. Nobody on earth today deserves that much money.
  - nobodywillobsrv 2y ago
    IT WAS NOT A 56B PAY PACKAGE AT THE TIME! READ THE DOCUMENT! IT IS CONDITIONAL ON PRICE! Deliberately misrepresenting things is evil. Please reread and reconsider.
  - stormfather 2y ago
    So... what? Should judges overturn all contracts they think are "unreasonable"?
    - free_bip 2y ago
      I'm arguing from a moral standpoint, not a legal one.
      - nobodywillobsrv 2y ago
        The contract was conditional on price. At the time, no one thought it possible to achieve such valuation. So they deemed the payout likely to be zero i.e. 99.9% that the payout was zero. You understand? This is a bonus, conditional on performance. This is not a simple payout. The legal case MUST come up at the time of initiation of the contract else it induces moral hazard. All of Delaware is now off limits for everyone for ever now. This is like an insurance contract being voided because it was "too good of a payout" but they only void it when you get injured, your houes burns down etc becaues "oh we didn't realize it until we had to pay". But they collected premium all those years and nobody challenged it. This is incredibly immoral. It is literally moral hazard.
    - ksherlock 2y ago
      Actually, yeah, judges do void Unconscionable Contracts on the regular.
    - syntaxing 2y ago
      Yes? That’s a big part of the judicial system. It’s a contract, not law.
  - anthony_d 2y ago
    If you’re the one with $56b then you’re free to decide that. In this case though you’re not on the giving or receiving end of the deal; your opinion really doesn’t matter.
    - free_bip 2y ago
      My opinion matters just as much as yours; besides, I'm arguing from a moral standpoint, not a legal one.

The ruling invalidated the pay package because it said the board did not disclose that it wasn't independent enough. This is a technicality. Every investor in Tesla knew this at the time (except for the activist investor and legal team that wants to steal 5 Billion from Tesla). The pay package was just and fair given the deliverables. Any CEO who promises to 10x a company's revenues and market cap could easily get the same deal from shareholders. The fairness of the deal is underlined by the fact that 99.9% of observers scoffed at it ever coming true. As a long term investor in Tesla (3500 shares @16$) I have seen thousands of negative posts like yours (Tesla sentiment has been ~95% negative over that entire time). In 2018 the sentiment on the stock was lower than it is even today. Many people mocked us investors as cultists, morons, suckers, rubes etc. They were wrong. I'm absolutely going to vote in favour of the compensation package in fulfillment of the deal which made me a millionaire.

free_bip 2y ago
A $56 billion pay package is wholly unreasonable for anything less than solving world hunger. Nobody on earth today deserves that much money.
- nobodywillobsrv 2y ago
  IT WAS NOT A 56B PAY PACKAGE AT THE TIME! READ THE DOCUMENT! IT IS CONDITIONAL ON PRICE! Deliberately misrepresenting things is evil. Please reread and reconsider.
- stormfather 2y ago
  So... what? Should judges overturn all contracts they think are "unreasonable"?
  - free_bip 2y ago
    I'm arguing from a moral standpoint, not a legal one.
    - nobodywillobsrv 2y ago
      The contract was conditional on price. At the time, no one thought it possible to achieve such valuation. So they deemed the payout likely to be zero i.e. 99.9% that the payout was zero. You understand? This is a bonus, conditional on performance. This is not a simple payout. The legal case MUST come up at the time of initiation of the contract else it induces moral hazard. All of Delaware is now off limits for everyone for ever now. This is like an insurance contract being voided because it was "too good of a payout" but they only void it when you get injured, your houes burns down etc becaues "oh we didn't realize it until we had to pay". But they collected premium all those years and nobody challenged it. This is incredibly immoral. It is literally moral hazard.
  - ksherlock 2y ago
    Actually, yeah, judges do void Unconscionable Contracts on the regular.
  - syntaxing 2y ago
    Yes? That’s a big part of the judicial system. It’s a contract, not law.
- anthony_d 2y ago
  If you’re the one with $56b then you’re free to decide that. In this case though you’re not on the giving or receiving end of the deal; your opinion really doesn’t matter.
  - free_bip 2y ago
    My opinion matters just as much as yours; besides, I'm arguing from a moral standpoint, not a legal one.