4 ms·

This is because Delaware stopped Elon's pay package, is there anything else I'm missing? I think incorporating in Texas or Nevada will net short term wins but t

This is because Delaware stopped Elon's pay package, is there anything else I'm missing? I think incorporating in Texas or Nevada will net short term wins but there's a lack of long term infrastructure. This signals the decline of the American tech companies as they make their decisions based on vibes not engineering.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> is there anything else I'm missing? We’re seeing a shift away from shareholder sovereignty to cult of the founder. Texas is an alternative to the former, which is the Delaware default.
- matthewdgreen 2y ago
  There will be a major market correction in the next few years and we'll see how this all goes.
meta_x_ai 2y ago
[dead]
graeme 2y ago
The Delware Court of Chancery in 2023 made corporate officers personally liable. Huge policy shift. https://www.cov.com/en/news-and-insights/insights/2023/04/for-the-first-time-a-delaware-court-holds-that-corporate-officers-have-a-duty-of-oversight https://www.cov.com/en/news-and-insights/insights/2023/04/fo...
jfengel 2y ago
Lack of infrastructure doesn't matter. These companies weren't physically located in Delaware anyway. It can be a pure matter of paperwork.
adastra22 2y ago
Have you followed the Elon pay package suit in detail? It was quite clearly an activist judge and the ruling is suspect on many levels. The first ruling might have been ok, as there was some irregularities with how the original pay package was approved. The second ruling was after Tesla dotted their i's and crossed their t's, getting ~80% shareholder approval, with Musk and his brother abstaining from the vote. Basically they fixed everything the judge said was wrong/irregular about the original pay package. The judge still threw it out, in December of last year, pretty much on vibes. Even legal experts well versed on Delaware law were confused by this. It is a rather unprecedented action by an activist judge in a state that is specifically known for clarity of the law. It really did undermine all trust in Delaware, and the very foundation of why people incorporate there in the first place.
- coliveira 2y ago
  There's no place in the world where a $50B pay package is justified. He's just ransacking the other investors. The board (if it had any spine) should tell him to stop or go away.
  - imbeciles77 2y ago
    This is a perfectly ignorant post. CEO: I agree to the plan Shareholders: I agree to the plan Board: I agree to the plan Random judge: I don't! Disallowing adults of sane mind from coming to mutually beneficial agreements and a judge can just throw it out because they don't like the guy is like setting off a nuclear bomb in regards to the rule of law. Abuses of the legal system like this are why we can't have nice things, and this is only one example, see: medicine.
    - dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
      Well, your first sentence is certainly correct. The board compensation committee is supposed to be independent of the person they are deciding compensation for, and it manifestly was not. That was the basis for her ruling.
  - adastra22 2y ago
    It was a $0 pay package when it was granted, while the Tesla market cap was ~$50B. It's now worth $100B because Tesla's market cap is $1.2 trillion. That's how stock options work. It was a 12% allocation, in the form of stock option grants to the CEO that were gated on some extremely high performance metrics. He hit most (all?) of those metrics, and as a result Tesla is now among the most valuable companies in the world. Shareholders have gotten a 2800% return on their investment from 2018. In exchange for a 12% dilution in their shares. 12% in new options is on the high end for an executive pay package, but not unheard of. It is only because of the massive success of Tesla under his leadership that this is even an issue. Shareholders got a good deal.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > second ruling was after Tesla dotted their i's and crossed their t's, getting ~80% shareholder approval, with Musk and his brother abstaining from the vote. Basically they fixed everything the judge said was wrong/irregular They didn’t. It was still a backdated package being voted on by a different set of shareholders than the ones who owned the stock when the package is backdated to. The dotting the i’s move would have been a new package in that amount, adjusted upwards to account for the higher taxes that would have had to have been paid due to it being granted up front. They didn’t do the dotting the i’s move.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> is there anything else I'm missing? We’re seeing a shift away from shareholder sovereignty to cult of the founder. Texas is an alternative to the former, which is the Delaware default.

matthewdgreen 2y ago
There will be a major market correction in the next few years and we'll see how this all goes.

meta_x_ai 2y ago

[dead]

graeme 2y ago

The Delware Court of Chancery in 2023 made corporate officers personally liable. Huge policy shift. https://www.cov.com/en/news-and-insights/insights/2023/04/for-the-first-time-a-delaware-court-holds-that-corporate-officers-have-a-duty-of-oversight https://www.cov.com/en/news-and-insights/insights/2023/04/fo...

jfengel 2y ago

Lack of infrastructure doesn't matter. These companies weren't physically located in Delaware anyway. It can be a pure matter of paperwork.

adastra22 2y ago

Have you followed the Elon pay package suit in detail? It was quite clearly an activist judge and the ruling is suspect on many levels. The first ruling might have been ok, as there was some irregularities with how the original pay package was approved. The second ruling was after Tesla dotted their i's and crossed their t's, getting ~80% shareholder approval, with Musk and his brother abstaining from the vote. Basically they fixed everything the judge said was wrong/irregular about the original pay package. The judge still threw it out, in December of last year, pretty much on vibes. Even legal experts well versed on Delaware law were confused by this. It is a rather unprecedented action by an activist judge in a state that is specifically known for clarity of the law. It really did undermine all trust in Delaware, and the very foundation of why people incorporate there in the first place.

coliveira 2y ago
There's no place in the world where a $50B pay package is justified. He's just ransacking the other investors. The board (if it had any spine) should tell him to stop or go away.
- imbeciles77 2y ago
  This is a perfectly ignorant post. CEO: I agree to the plan Shareholders: I agree to the plan Board: I agree to the plan Random judge: I don't! Disallowing adults of sane mind from coming to mutually beneficial agreements and a judge can just throw it out because they don't like the guy is like setting off a nuclear bomb in regards to the rule of law. Abuses of the legal system like this are why we can't have nice things, and this is only one example, see: medicine.
  - dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
    Well, your first sentence is certainly correct. The board compensation committee is supposed to be independent of the person they are deciding compensation for, and it manifestly was not. That was the basis for her ruling.
- adastra22 2y ago
  It was a $0 pay package when it was granted, while the Tesla market cap was ~$50B. It's now worth $100B because Tesla's market cap is $1.2 trillion. That's how stock options work. It was a 12% allocation, in the form of stock option grants to the CEO that were gated on some extremely high performance metrics. He hit most (all?) of those metrics, and as a result Tesla is now among the most valuable companies in the world. Shareholders have gotten a 2800% return on their investment from 2018. In exchange for a 12% dilution in their shares. 12% in new options is on the high end for an executive pay package, but not unheard of. It is only because of the massive success of Tesla under his leadership that this is even an issue. Shareholders got a good deal.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> second ruling was after Tesla dotted their i's and crossed their t's, getting ~80% shareholder approval, with Musk and his brother abstaining from the vote. Basically they fixed everything the judge said was wrong/irregular They didn’t. It was still a backdated package being voted on by a different set of shareholders than the ones who owned the stock when the package is backdated to. The dotting the i’s move would have been a new package in that amount, adjusted upwards to account for the higher taxes that would have had to have been paid due to it being granted up front. They didn’t do the dotting the i’s move.