I et indlæg publiceret i Harvard Law School Forum kommenterer en række erhvervsadvokater på sagen om Tornetta vs. Musk. Her fastslog Delaware Court of Chancery i slut januar, at Teslas bestyrelse ikke levede op til deres forpligtelse overfor aktionærerne, da de godkendte et bonusprogram for Elon Musk, Teslas administrerende direktør.
Bonusprogrammet havde en estimeret maksimal værdi på 55,8 milliarder dollars og blev anset for uretfærdig blandt andet på grund af Musks betydelige kontrol over Tesla.
Her udklip af artiklens centrale pointer:
- “The court viewed Tesla’s Compensation Committee as having simply given Musk whatever he wanted. Musk proposed the terms of the compensation plan and the Committee essentially did not change them; the Committee members had significant personal and business ties to Musk; and the Committee did not engage in negotiations with Musk.”
- “The decision offers cautionary lessons for boards negotiating executive compensation plans—but presents a unique fact situation. The case is distinguishable from virtually all others in the sheer magnitude of the compensation plan for Musk (as the court put it, “the incredible size of the biggest compensation plan ever—an unfathomable sum”).”
- “The case highlights the drawbacks of a compensation committee not being comprised of at least one clearly independent director. In this case, the two Committee members, although purportedly independent, had strong business and personal ties to Musk.”
- “The court emphasized that Musk already had been very well rewarded for his efforts at Tesla through the increased value of his pre-existing 21.9% equity interest.”
Læs hele artiklen her.
