Connect with us

News

Tesla investor’s legal team urges DE court to respect Musk pay ratification vote

Credit: Andrea Conway/X

Published

on

Tesla shareholders ratified Elon Musk’s 2018 CEO Performance Award at the 2024 Cyber Roundup, but the fight about the matter in Delaware Court is not over just yet. This was highlighted in a joinder filed by the legal team of a TSLA investor who decided to challenge the astronomical fee request of the lawyers of shareholder Richard Tornetta, who filed a legal complaint about Musk’s 2018 pay package at a time when he held just nine shares of the EV maker. 

Tornetta’s legal team has argued that they deserve to be paid over 29 million shares of TSLA for their services in the case, which translated to over $5 billion at the time or over $200,000 per hour. Tesla shareholder Amy Steffens, a longtime investor of Tesla with over 19,000 shares, secured her own legal team to challenge the fee request of Tornetta’s lawyers. Following the decision of Tesla investors to ratify Musk’s pay package at the 2024 Cyber Roundup, Tornetta’s legal team argued that the ratification of the CEO’s pay package was invalid since investors were still “coerced” and “uninformed.” The lawyers also described the events that transpired leading up to the ratification of Musk’s pay package as a “clown show.” 

Steffens’ legal team has now submitted a joinder for the case, which will hopefully be heard later this week when the court is expected to hold a hearing for the motion to reconsider the Delaware Judge’s preliminary ruling in the case. The joinder, parts of which were shared on X by Tesla investor Alexandra Merz, argued that the ratification of Musk’s pay package by TSLA shareholders showed that Tornetta’s complaint against the CEO Performance Award “provided no tangible economic benefit to Tesla or its stockholders.” Steffens’ legal team also highlighted that contrary to the claims of Tornetta’s lawyers, the shareholder vote on Musk’s pay plan is likely among the most informed stockholder votes in Delaware history. 

“The Ratification Vote was fully informed indeed, it is likely among the most informed votes in Delaware corporate history. The extensive proxy filings included this Court’s rescission opinion, so Tesla’s stockholders were well aware of the issues identified by this Court prior to their ratification vote. The ratification issue was robustly debated online, on television, and in newspapers. Opponents— including Mr. Tornetta’s experts in this litigation made their voices heard.’ When the votes came in, Mr. Tornetta lost decisively: 72% of disinterested voting shares favored ratification,” the lawyers wrote. 

Steffens’ legal team also addressed the “clown show” comment from Tornetta’s attorneys. “Mr. Tornetta’s counsel disparages this exercise of stockholder democracy as a ‘clown show.’ It is anything but. Ms. Steffens and Tesla’s other stockholders had all the relevant facts before them, including this Court’s decision, and determined that the 2018 Grant benefited them more than rescission. When stockholders freely petition their elected board for a vote, and then overwhelmingly affirm a board’s decision by voting to uphold it, further litigation by a derivative plaintiff attacking that democratically determined result is neither necessary nor appropriate,” Steffens’ legal team noted.

Advertisement
-->

The longtime Tesla investors’ legal team urged the court to respect TSLA stockholders’ democracy as well. “Even beyond Due Process concerns, respect for stockholder democracy commends limiting Plaintiff’s continuing role in light of the Ratification Vote. Here, the question goes beyond Mr. Tornetta’s adequacy to the source of his authority. When Mr. Tornetta steps into the shoes of Tesla as a derivative plaintiff, he does so without democratic legitimacy. Tesla’s stockholders can vote out their directors, but they lack any democratic means to revoke Mr. Tornetta’s authority as a plaintiff. 

“Ms. Steffens respectfully suggests that in this specific context-where a supermajority of fully-informed, uncoerced stockholders unambiguously repudiates the relief obtained by a derivative plaintiff-the Court should treat this as a vote of no confidence and withdraw Mr. Tornetta’s authority to act on behalf of the Company. At the very least, where a plaintiff has shown himself willing to pay his counsel hundreds of thousands of dollars per hour to engage in legal work that conflicts directly with the wishes of the vast majority of stockholders, those stockholders should have some means (through the ballot box or the courtroom) to eliminate that plaintiff’s authority to continue to engage in such damaging conduct while purporting to act on their behalf,” the longtime TSLA shareholder’s legal team wrote. 

Tesla CEO Elon Musk seems to have appreciated the efforts of the TSLA stockholder’s legal team. Responding to a post about the matter on social media platform X, Musk responded to the shareholder’s efforts with a couple of “lit” emojis. 

Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.

Advertisement
-->

Simon is an experienced automotive reporter with a passion for electric cars and clean energy. Fascinated by the world envisioned by Elon Musk, he hopes to make it to Mars (at least as a tourist) someday. For stories or tips--or even to just say a simple hello--send a message to his email, simon@teslarati.com or his handle on X, @ResidentSponge.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

Tesla Optimus shows off its newest capability as progress accelerates

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla Optimus showed off its newest capability as progress on the project continues to accelerate toward an ultimate goal of mass production in the coming years.

Tesla is still developing Optimus and preparing for the first stages of mass production, where units would be sold and shipped to customers. CEO Elon Musk has always marketed the humanoid robot as the biggest product in history, even outside of Tesla, but of all time.

He believes it will eliminate the need to manually perform monotonous tasks, like cleaning, mowing the lawn, and folding laundry.

However, lately, Musk has revealed even bigger plans for Optimus, including the ability to relieve humans of work entirely within the next 20 years.

Development at Tesla’s Artificial Intelligence and Robotics teams has progressed, and a new video was shown of the robot taking a light jog with what appeared to be some pretty natural form:

Optimus has also made several public appearances lately, including one at the Neural Information Processing Systems, or NeurIPS Conference. Some spectators shared videos of Optimus’s charging rig, as well as its movements and capabilities, most interestingly, the hand:

The hand, forearm, and fingers have been one of the most evident challenges for Tesla in recent times, especially as it continues to work on its 3rd Generation iteration of Optimus.

Musk said during the Q3 Earnings Call:

“I don’t want to downplay the difficulty, but it’s an incredibly difficult thing, especially to create a hand that is as dexterous and capable as the human hand, which is incredible. The human hand is an incredible thing. The more you study the human hand, the more incredible you realize it is, and why you need four fingers and a thumb, why the fingers have certain degrees of freedom, why the various muscles are of different strengths, and fingers are of different lengths. It turns out that those are all there for a reason.”

The interesting part of the Optimus program so far is the fact that Tesla has made a lot of progress with other portions of the project, like movement, for example, which appears to have come a long way.

However, without a functional hand and fingers, Optimus could be rendered relatively useless, so it is evident that it has to figure this crucial part out first.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Elon Musk and Tesla try to save legacy automakers from Déjà vu

Published

on

tesla interior operating on full self driving
Credit: TESLARATI

Elon Musk said in late November that he’s “tried to warn” legacy automakers and “even offered to license Tesla Full Self-Driving, but they don’t want it,” expressing frustration with companies that refuse to adopt the company’s suite, which will eventually be autonomous.

Tesla has long established itself as the leader in self-driving technology, especially in the United States. Although there are formidable competitors, Tesla’s FSD suite is the most robust and is not limited to certain areas or roadways. It operates anywhere and everywhere.

The company’s current position as the leader in self-driving tech is being ignored by legacy automakers, a parallel to what Tesla’s position was with EV development over a decade ago, which was also ignored by competitors.

The reluctance mirrors how legacy automakers initially dismissed EVs, only to scramble in catch-up mode years later–a pattern that highlights their historical underestimation of disruptive innovations from Tesla.

Elon Musk’s Self-Driving Licensing Attempts

Musk and Tesla have tried to push Full Self-Driving to other car companies, with no true suitors, despite ongoing conversations for years. Tesla’s FSD is aiming to become more robust through comprehensive data collection and a larger fleet, something the company has tried to establish through a subscription program, free trials, and other strategies.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk sends rivals dire warning about Full Self-Driving

However, competing companies have not wanted to license FSD for a handful of speculative reasons: competitive pride, regulatory concerns, high costs, or preference for in-house development.

Déjà vu All Over Again

Tesla tried to portray the importance of EVs long ago, as in the 2010s, executives from companies like Ford and GM downplayed the importance of sustainable powertrains as niche or unprofitable.

Musk once said in a 2014 interview that rivals woke up to electric powertrains when the Model S started to disrupt things and gained some market share. Things got really serious upon the launch of the Model 3 in 2017, as a mass-market vehicle was what Tesla was missing from its lineup.

This caused legacy companies to truly wake up; they were losing market share to Tesla’s new and exciting tech that offered less maintenance, a fresh take on passenger auto, and other advantages. They were late to the party, and although they have all launched vehicles of their own, they still lag in two major areas: sales and infrastructure, leaning on Tesla for the latter.

Musk’s past warnings have been plentiful. In 2017, he responded to critics who stated Tesla was chasing subsidies. He responded, “Few people know that we started Tesla when GM forcibly recalled all electric cars from customers in 2003 and then crushed them in a junkyard,” adding that “they would be doing nothing” on EVs without Tesla’s efforts.

Companies laughed off Tesla’s prowess with EVs, only to realize they had made a grave mistake later on.

It looks to be happening once again.

A Pattern of Underestimation

Both EVs and self-driving tech represent major paradigm shifts that legacy players view as threats to their established business models; it’s hard to change. However, these early push-aways from new tech only result in reactive strategies later on, usually resulting in what pains they are facing now.

Ford is scaling back its EV efforts, and GM’s projects are hurting. Although they both have in-house self-driving projects, they are falling well behind the progress of Tesla and even other competitors.

It is getting to a point where short-term risk will become a long-term setback, and they may have to rely on a company to pull them out of a tough situation later on, just as it did with Tesla and EV charging infrastructure.

Tesla has continued to innovate, while legacy automakers have lagged behind, and it has cost them dearly.

Implications and Future Outlook

Moving forward, Tesla’s progress will continue to accelerate, while a dismissive attitude by other companies will continue to penalize them, especially as time goes on. Falling further behind in self-driving could eventually lead to market share erosion, as autonomy could be a crucial part of vehicle marketing within the next few years.

Eventually, companies could be forced into joint partnerships as economic pressures mount. Some companies did this with EVs, but it has not resulted in very much.

Self-driving efforts are not only a strength for companies themselves, but they also contribute to other things, like affordability and safety.

Tesla has exhibited data that specifically shows its self-driving tech is safer than human drivers, most recently by a considerable margin. This would help with eliminating accidents and making roads safer.

Tesla’s new Safety Report shows Autopilot is nine times safer than humans

Additionally, competition in the market is a good thing, as it drives costs down and helps innovation continue on an upward trend.

Conclusion

The parallels are unmistakable: a decade ago, legacy automakers laughed off electric vehicles as toys for tree-huggers, crushed their own EV programs, and bet everything on the internal-combustion status quo–only to watch Tesla redefine the industry while they scrambled for billions in catch-up capital.

Today, the same companies are turning down repeated offers to license Tesla’s Full Self-Driving technology, insisting they can build better autonomy in-house, even as their own programs stumble through recalls, layoffs, and missed milestones. History is not merely rhyming; it is repeating almost note-for-note.

Elon Musk has spent twenty years warning that the auto industry’s bureaucratic inertia and short-term thinking will leave it stranded on the wrong side of technological revolutions. The question is no longer whether Tesla is ahead–it is whether the giants of Detroit, Stuttgart, and Toyota will finally listen before the next wave leaves them watching another leader pull away in the rear-view mirror.

This time, the stakes are not just market share; they are the very definition of what a car will be in the decades ahead.

Continue Reading

News

Waymo driverless taxi drives directly into active LAPD standoff

No injuries occurred, and the passengers inside the vehicle were safely transported to their destination, as per a Waymo representative.

Published

on

Credit: Alex Choi/Instagram

A video posted on social media has shown an occupied Waymo driverless taxi driving directly into the middle of an active LAPD standoff in downtown Los Angeles. 

As could be seen in the short video, which was initially posted on Instagram by user Alex Choi, a Waymo driverless taxi drove directly into the middle of an active LAPD standoff in downtown Los Angeles. 

The driverless taxi made an unprotected left turn despite what appeared to be a red light, briefly entering a police perimeter. At the time, officers seemed to be giving commands to a prone suspect on the ground, who looked quite surprised at the sudden presence of the driverless vehicle. 

People on the sidewalk, including the person who was filming the video, could be heard chuckling at the Waymo’s strange behavior. 

The Waymo reportedly cleared the area within seconds. No injuries occurred, and the passengers inside the vehicle were safely transported to their destination, as per a Waymo representative. Still, the video spread across social media, with numerous netizens poking fun at the gaffe. 

Advertisement
-->

Others also pointed out that such a gaffe would have resulted in widespread controversy had the vehicle involved been a Tesla on FSD. Tesla is constantly under scrutiny, with TSLA shorts and similar groups actively trying to put down the company’s FSD program.

A Tesla on FSD or Robotaxi accidentally driving into an active police standoff would likely cause lawsuits, nonstop media coverage, and calls for a worldwide ban, at the least.

This was one of the reasons why even minor traffic infractions committed by the company’s Robotaxis during their initial rollout in Austin received nationwide media attention. This particular Waymo incident, however, will likely not receive as much coverage.  

Continue Reading