Before Tesla’s important shareholder vote, let’s re-read the judge’s opinion that brought us here

There was quite a little bit of drama in the run-up to Tesla’s annual shareholder meeting on Thursday. The company is ready to carry a vote on “re-ratification” of the $56 billion compensation package awarded to Elon Musk in 2018, which was rejected by a Court of Chancery judge in Delaware earlier this yr. There will even be a vote on whether the company will change its location from Delaware to Texas.

Some of Tesla’s biggest supporters are calling on the company to “retail armyshareholders to vote for each, with particular emphasis on Musk’s salary. It’s not clear what measurable impact what will probably be the results of any vote. But Tesla executives and employees – including some who virtually never post on social media – are simply begging for votes.

Breathtaking long-form posts, audio Spaces, podcasts, and countless other calls to motion have focused on the idea that Musk deserves this compensation because he achieved the goals agreed upon at the outset. “A deal is a deal” – Tesla sent on its CEO’s social media platform X.

Yet almost nobody discusses the substance of Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick’s January ruling and its dominant theme: Musk has a lot power over Tesla and its management that there have been no significant negotiations when the company worked out this take care of him in 2017-2018.

Instead, there have been accusations from the Tesla faithful that he’s “radical activist judge” – accusations that may be easily refuted by reading her evaluation of the evidence in the case.

So some homework! To the Tesla fans, haters, shareholders and fools, here it’s again, posted below. McCormick’s 201-page opinion is an insightful but lucid read. It is price refreshing this issue again before voting. This is at the very least an introduction to the legal battle that will definitely proceed after Thursday’s vote.

Tornett’s post-trial opinion against Musk By Sean O’Kane on Scribd