Connect with us

News

Elon Musk’s attorneys plead with Judge to vacate $56bn Tesla pay package decision

MINISTÉRIO DAS COMUNICAÇÕES, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

Published

on

Elon Musk’s attorneys are in Delaware today, pleading with Judge Kathaleen McCormick to vacate her decision to invalidate the Tesla CEO’s $56 billion pay package that was ratified by shareholders this past June.

In January, Judge McCormick said Musk’s $56 billion pay package was invalidated because she felt it was an “unfathomable sum.” The voided pay was then ratified, for a second time, by investors at the June Tesla Shareholders meeting, but it did not mean Musk would receive the pay.

Now, attorneys are in Delaware attempting to get Musk paid by bringing up the second ratification to Judge McCormick. Judge David Ross said to McCormick today at a hearing that the vote by shareholders in June should be honored:

“Honoring the shareholder vote would affirm the strength of our corporate system. This was stockholder democracy working.”

Advertisement

Ross said the defendants were not challenging the conclusions or facts in her ruling, but that the order she wrote telling Tesla to rescind the pay package be vacated, Detroit News said.

McCormick did not seem enthused because it could set precedence that rulings could be challenged and then overturned. Delaware law has no previous record of post-trial shareholder votes ratifying what she believes is a breach of fiduciary duty.

Attorneys are baffled that Delaware law somehow overrules what investors, also known as owners of the company, voted for in what was overwhelming fashion earlier this year:

“I candidly don’t see how Delaware law can tell the owners of the company that they’re not entitled to make the decision they made.”

Advertisement

Donald Verrilli, another lawyer for an individual shareholder, said:

“The voice of the majority of shareholders should matter…. This lawsuit is not representing the interest of the shareholders.”

It seems undecided whether Musk’s pay package will be validated by McCormick, although shareholders have voted that it should be given.

I’d love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or questions, please email me at joey@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @KlenderJoey, or if you have news tips, you can email us at tips@teslarati.com.

Advertisement

Joey has been a journalist covering electric mobility at TESLARATI since August 2019. In his spare time, Joey is playing golf, watching MMA, or cheering on any of his favorite sports teams, including the Baltimore Ravens and Orioles, Miami Heat, Washington Capitals, and Penn State Nittany Lions. You can get in touch with joey at joey@teslarati.com. He is also on X @KlenderJoey. If you're looking for great Tesla accessories, check out shop.teslarati.com

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla Sweden strikers see tax issues over IF Metall union error

To address the issue, IF Metall is encouraging Tesla strikers to return the refunded tax amounts to the union.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla Europe

A tax correction is set to return two years of income tax payments to Tesla strikers in Sweden, after authorities determined that conflict compensation during a labor dispute should not have been taxed.

The issue is caused by a decision by IF Metall to treat strike compensation for Tesla workers as taxable income during the ongoing labor dispute with Tesla Sweden. That approach has now been reversed following guidance from the Swedish Tax Agency.

Strike compensation is typically tax-free under Sweden’s Income Tax Act, as noted in a report from Dagens Arbete (DA). However, two years ago, IF Metall’s board decided to classify payments to Tesla strikers as taxable.

“We did it to secure SGI, unemployment insurance and public pension. Those were the risks we saw when the strike had already dragged on,” Kent Bursjöö, financial manager at IF Metall, stated.

Advertisement

According to Bursjöö, the union wanted to ensure that members continued to register earned income with the tax agency, protecting benefits tied to income history. At the end of January, however, the Swedish Tax Agency informed the union that compensation during a labor dispute must be tax-free.

“Of course, we knew that it could be tax-free. But we clearly didn’t know that it couldn’t be taxable,” Bursjöö said.

Following discussions with auditors and tax authorities, IF Metall began correcting the payments. As a result, two years of paid income tax will now be credited back to the affected strikers’ tax accounts. The union will also recover previously paid employer contributions.

However, the correction creates secondary effects. Since the payments will now be treated as tax-free, pension contributions tied to those earnings will be withdrawn, potentially affecting state pension accrual and income-based benefits such as parental or sickness benefits.

Advertisement

To address this, IF Metall is encouraging members to return the refunded tax amounts to the union. In exchange, the union plans to pay 18.5% into occupational pensions on their behalf. “Otherwise, it will be a form of overcompensation when they get the tax paid back,” Bursjöö said.

That being said, the IF Metall officer acknowledged that the union’s legal ability to reclaim the funds from its improperly paid Tesla Sweden strikers is limited. “The legal possibilities are probably limited, from what we can see. But we assume that most people see the value of securing their pension,” Bursjöö said.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Tesla sues California DMV over Autopilot and FSD advertising ruling

The complaint seeks to remove the agency’s conclusion that Tesla falsely promoted the capabilities of Autopilot and Full Self-Driving.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla has filed a lawsuit against the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) in an effort to overturn a prior ruling that found the automaker engaged in false advertising related to its driver-assistance systems. 

The complaint seeks to remove the agency’s conclusion that Tesla misled customers about the capabilities of Autopilot and Full Self-Driving.

Tesla’s legal action follows a decision by California’s Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), which concluded that Tesla’s earlier marketing of “Autopilot” and “Full Self-Driving” violated state law, as noted in a CNBC report. 

While the DMV opted not to suspend Tesla’s license after determining the company had updated its marketing language for its advanced driver-assistance systems, Tesla is asking the court to go further and reverse the agency’s conclusion.

Advertisement

In its Feb. 13 complaint, Tesla’s attorneys argued that the DMV “wrongfully and baselessly” labeled the company a “false advertiser” for its Autopilot and FSD systems. The filing argued that regulators failed to demonstrate that consumers were actually misled about the capabilities of Tesla’s systems.

According to Tesla’s complaint, the DMV “never proved consumers in the state had been confused about whether its cars were safe to drive without a human at the wheel.”

Tesla’s legal team further stated: “It was impossible to buy a Tesla equipped with either Autopilot or Full Self-Driving Capability, or to use any of their associated features, without seeing clear and repeated statements that they do not make the vehicle autonomous.”

Tesla now promotes its driver-assistance system as “Full Self-Driving (Supervised),” a name that overemphasizes the need for active driver attention.

Advertisement

Tesla’s autonomous driving program is a pivotal part of the company’s future, with CEO Elon Musk stating that self-driving technology will truly be the solution that will push Tesla into its full potential. The company is currently operating a Robotaxi pilot in Austin and the Bay Area, and the company recently announced that it has produced the first Cybercab from Giga Texas’ production line. 

Continue Reading

News

Tesla is making two big upgrades to the Model 3, coding shows

According to coding found in the European and Chinese configurators, Tesla is planning to make two big upgrades: Black Headliner offerings and a new 16-inch QHD display, similar to that on the Model Y Performance.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla is making two big upgrades to the Model 3, one of which is widely requested by owners and fans, and another that it has already started to make on some trim levels of other models within the lineup.

The changes appear to be taking effect in the European and Chinese markets, but these are expected to come to the United States based on what Tesla has done with the Model Y.

According to coding found in the European and Chinese configurators, Tesla is planning to make two big upgrades: Black Headliner offerings and a new 16-inch QHD display, similar to that on the Model Y Performance.

These changes in the coding were spotted by X user BERKANT, who shared the findings on the social media platform this morning:

It appears these new upgrades will roll out with the Model 3 Performance and Tesla’s Premium trim levels of the all-electric sedan.

The changes are welcome. Tesla fans have been requesting that its Model 3 and Model Y offerings receive a black headliner, as even with the black interior options, the headliner is grey.

Tesla recently upgraded Model Y vehicles to this black headliner option, even in the United States, so it seems as if the Model 3 will get the same treatment as it appears to be getting in the Eastern hemisphere.

Tesla Model 3 wins Edmunds’ Best EV of 2026 award

Tesla has been basically accentuating the Model 3 and Model Y with small upgrades that owners have been wanting, and it has been a focal point of the company’s future plans as it phases out other vehicles like the Model S and Model X.

Additionally, Tesla offered an excellent 0.99% APR last week on the Model 3, hoping to push more units out the door to support a strong Q1 delivery figure at the beginning of April.

Continue Reading