It's absurd that anyone could get that wealthy honestly and Musk is an asshole but he delivered exactly what he said he would under the compensation agreement. It seems pretty wild that you can agree to pay someone a certain amount provided they meet a target, then when they meet that target you take them to court and the court says you don't have to pay them.

That said, I think to say he's already been fairly compensated is a ridiculous understatement and I don't know much about the case. Sounds like something was up with the negotiations and I'm not going to shed too many tears over some billionaire being slightly less of a billionaire than they could have been.

[–] Zippy@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

Tesla has returned near zero to shareholders yet. I don't think people understand this. Yes share value had increased but from an investment perspective, a company must return to investors in the form of dividends or share buybacks an amount equal to that of all capital raised plus some percentage to justify the risk and time invested. That has to happen at some point.

That doesn't mean the company does not provide something to society but from an overall investment perspective, Tesla has yet to return a dollar yet. All that has happened so far is that many people gave a great deal of money to Tesla then a bunch more people exchanged money back and forth.

[–] Trudge@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 9 months ago

The shareholder’s lawyers argued that the compensation package should be voided because it was dictated by Musk and was the product of sham negotiations with directors who were not independent of him. They also said it was approved by shareholders who were given misleading and incomplete disclosures in a proxy statement.

The compensation agreement itself is suspect as Musk himself had over 1/4 of the total voting share and other directors were controlled by him as well. As an example, a shareholder who holds 51% of the shares can't just choose to legally print himself more of the stock at the expense of the 49% and that is what the lawsuit is alleging.

[–] nekandro@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago

I mean, I'm not disappointed that he's not getting more rich, I'm disappointed that the courts can decide to rip up a contract solely because it benefits the wrong kind of shareholders.