Elon Musk spoke out against a Delaware judge who ruled Monday against reinstating Musk’s $56 billion salary package with Tesla.
“The large and talented group of defense companies has gotten creative with the ratification argument, but their unprecedented theories fly in the face of multiple well-established laws,” wrote Delaware Chancellor Kathaleen St . J. McCormick, in his 103-page decision.
“Absolute corruption,” Musk wrote on his website X, formerly Twitter, in response to the ruling.
Billy Markus, who created Dogecoin, described McCormick as an “activist judge” on dollars to certain lawyers who filed suit on their behalf. of a rando who owned about 8 shares…literally corrupt bulls….”
“Absolutely,” Musk wrote in response to Markus’ post.
“She’s an activist posing as a judge,” the Tesla CEO said in another post.
“Shareholders should control the company’s votes, not judges,” he added.
Musk also reposted another user’s post who wrote: “Things to do in Delaware: 1) Leave.”
Tesla shareholders initially approved the compensation package, in the form of stock options, in 2018. But McCormick rescinded it in January after a Tesla shareholder filed a lawsuit alleging that it went beyond the bounds of reasonable judgment.
Allison Robbert/Pool/AP
The shareholder, Richard Tornetta, also alleged that Tesla provided “materially misleading” information to investors.
In his January ruling, McCormick called the process leading to the package’s approval “deeply flawed,” writing that Musk “controlled Tesla,” had unfair power over the company’s board of directors and that investors were not fully informed. the terms of the package.
In arguing for reinstatement of the 2018 package, Tesla lawyers pointed out that the company’s shareholders voted to reratify it in June, five months after McCormick’s initial decision to cancel the package.
But the judge wrote in her opinion Monday that the argument was flawed and that Tesla’s lawyers “have no procedural grounds to overturn the outcome of an adverse posttrial decision based on the evidence they have created after the trial.
She noted that “even if a shareholder vote could have ratifying effect, it could not do so here.” McCormick added: “If the court tolerated the practice of allowing defeated parties to create new facts in an effort to revise judgments, lawsuits would become interminable. »
McCormick went on to write that “there was undoubtedly a range of healthy amounts that the Board could have decided to pay Musk. Instead, the Board capitulated to Musk’s terms and then did not succeeded in proving that these conditions were entirely fair.
News week contacted the communications teams at Tesla, X and SpaceX via email Monday evening for comment.
