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.
— Ale𝕏andra Merz 🇺🇲 (@TeslaBoomerMama) July 30, 2024
“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.
— Ale𝕏andra Merz 🇺🇲 (@TeslaBoomerMama) July 30, 2024
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.
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.
🔥🔥
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 30, 2024
“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.
