The Dark Stain on Tesla's Directors(montanaskeptic.substack.com)
montanaskeptic.substack.com
The Dark Stain on Tesla's Directors
https://montanaskeptic.substack.com/p/the-dark-stain-on-teslas-directors
14 comments
In a way pulling AI and Robotics out of Tesla would be beneficial to the Engineering staff IMO. The highly competitive car market will eventual drag down any value increases in Tesla created by AI and Robotics. As individual entities they will be more like a startup and Engineers could receive more stock and see larger increases in the stock's value. Increasing Musk's ownership only helps musk - not the staff.
Assuming that Tesla's AI acumen is any better than its Full Self-Driving acumen (ie not full at all), this is a crucial bit:
> No Discussion of Musk’s Threats Regarding AI & Robotics
The proxy statement makes no mention of the first elephant in the room: Musk’s threat to stop developing robotics and AI technologies at Tesla (and, indeed, it never mentions that Musk has poached Tesla engineering talent for his own AI start-up, or that he just raised $6 billion for that start-up). Even worse, the proxy materials omit this information while at the same time boasting of “our progress in artificial intelligence via full self-driving and Optimus.” If the Board failed to discuss these issues with Musk, then that failure is a colossal breach of fiduciary duty. If the Board did discuss these issues with Musk, then the omission of the details of those discussions from the proxy statement makes the proxy materially misleading.
You really have to roll the dice with Musk.
> No Discussion of Musk’s Threats Regarding AI & Robotics
The proxy statement makes no mention of the first elephant in the room: Musk’s threat to stop developing robotics and AI technologies at Tesla (and, indeed, it never mentions that Musk has poached Tesla engineering talent for his own AI start-up, or that he just raised $6 billion for that start-up). Even worse, the proxy materials omit this information while at the same time boasting of “our progress in artificial intelligence via full self-driving and Optimus.” If the Board failed to discuss these issues with Musk, then that failure is a colossal breach of fiduciary duty. If the Board did discuss these issues with Musk, then the omission of the details of those discussions from the proxy statement makes the proxy materially misleading.
You really have to roll the dice with Musk.
I've been seeing a lot of media coverage of this lately. The Tesla BOD voted on, and approved this compensation package in 2018. The package rewarded Musk for various milestones, and TSLA stock saw incredible gains over the period covered by the package. The result was a $56B incentive award to Musk, challenged by Richard Tornetta in Delaware. (Tornetta held just 9 shares of TSLA when he filed his lawsuit.) So the activist judge in Delaware nullified the contract and the result is that Musk gets no compensation for the incredible job he did for all TSLA investors. Musk has since re-incorporated Tesla in Texas, and he's now asking the BOD to pay him for his hard work. Is it "unfair" to TSLA shareholders to reward Musk for a job well done, or is it "unfair" to Musk to have his BOD-approved compensation package contract voided after the fact by an activist judge, as a result of a cheap shot lawsuit from a nobody shareholder?
Disclaimer: I earned over $100k trading TSLA stock last year, but at present I do not hold any shares.
Disclaimer: I earned over $100k trading TSLA stock last year, but at present I do not hold any shares.
Activist judge is a wild term for pointing out that BoD are all friends and even family with Musk and thus hardly independent.
These shareholders are all free to mail Elon a cheque with any amount they want as bonus.
Musk should be fired for threatening to undermine the company he is in charge of. Tesla needs to be "hard core" about this.
They really should. Even if they give in to his threats, there's no guarantee that sleezeball won't follow through on his threats anyway.
Didn't Musk have to sell a bunch of Tesla to buy Twitter? Sounds like he wants Tesla to make up for his own bonehead move.
> Insights about the egregious behavior of Elon Musk, & about the chaotic craziness at Tesla, Inc., all with a legal slant informed by my career as a commercial trial lawyer.
This is a nakedly partisan substack account. Does this really meet HN's quality standards?
This is a nakedly partisan substack account. Does this really meet HN's quality standards?
HN's guideline's [1] do not require neutrality. They do, however, say "Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate".
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Everyone is partisan. Kudos for those who openly admit it.
Yeah, a "commercial trial lawyer" who vehemently supports court interference with companies and lawsuits to seize control from shareholders and founders. This parasitic class will be the end of the United States.
I can think of lots of things that could end the United States, and Elon Musk having a slightly smaller ownership stake of Tesla doesn't seem like one of them.
What Musk is trying to do seems borderline criminal. It seems to me that he is using his control of Tesla to extort the company for compensation.
It's one thing to say that he deserves to be compensated for the benefit he brings to the company. It's quite another to threaten to undermine the company if he doesn't get his way.
It's one thing to say that he deserves to be compensated for the benefit he brings to the company. It's quite another to threaten to undermine the company if he doesn't get his way.