TheCorporateCounsel.net

Here’s something Liz shared on the CompensationStandards.com Advisors’ Blog yesterday:

It was the “moonshot” award that started it all. But last week, as you’ve probably heard, Elon Musk did not get the outcome he was hoping for in the Tornetta v. Musk litigation that has been winding its way through the Delaware Court of Chancery for several years.

The case challenged the record-breaking equity award that was granted to Musk in 2018 and – when the value of the company skyrocketed – came to be worth about $51 billion. Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick issued her 201-page opinion last Tuesday. As Tulane Law Prof Ann Lipton put it, “she took the extraordinary step of holding that Elon Musk’s Tesla pay package from 2018 was not ‘entirely fair’ to Tesla investors, and ordered that it be rescinded.” Mechanically, it looks like the options that the company had granted to Musk will now be cancelled (none of the options had been exercised). Ann’s blog walks through the complex legal standards – & burdens of proof – that led Chancellor McCormick to this outcome. Here’s an excerpt:

Formally, in Tornetta, the court concluded that Elon Musk was a controlling shareholder of Tesla, at least for the purposes of setting his compensation package. The court considered both his 21% percent stake, and his “ability to exercise outsized influence in the board room” due to his close personal ties to the directors and his “superstar CEO” status. She recounted the process by which the pay package was set, noting in particular that Musk proposed it, Musk controlled the timelines of the board’s deliberation, and he received almost no pushback – board members and Tesla’s general counsel seemed to view themselves as participating in a cooperative process to set Musk’s pay, rather than an adversarial one.

What about the stockholder vote? That, too, was tainted, because – McCormick concluded – the proxy statement delivered to shareholders contained material misrepresentations and omissions. It described Tesla’s compensation committee as independent when in fact the members had close personal ties to Musk, and it did not accurately describe the manner in which his pay package was set – again, with Musk himself proposing it and the board largely acquiescing. With those findings in hand, McCormick did not rule on the plaintiff’s additional arguments that the proxy statement was misleading for other reasons (namely, it falsely described the payment milestones as “stretches” when in fact the early ones were already expected within Tesla internally.)

Chancellor McCormick said that the process leading to the approval of the compensation plan was “deeply flawed.” Advisors will also find it interesting that she reviewed an early draft of Tesla’s proxy statement and found it to be the “most reliable (indeed, the only) evidence” of the substance of the discussion that established the terms of Musk’s equity grant. Over the course of several drafts, the existence of that conversation was edited out – so, it was not mentioned in the as-filed proxy. The judge also took issue with this statement:

The Proxy disclosed that, when setting the milestones, “the Board carefully considered a variety of factors, including Tesla’s growth trajectory and internal growth plans and the historical performance of other high-growth and high-multiples companies in the technology space that have invested in new businesses and tangible assets.” “Internal growth plans” referred to Tesla’s projections.

According to the court’s findings, the proxy was misleading because it didn’t disclose that the company had projections that would show that the milestones would be achieved. As Ann explained in her blog, the court also took issue with describing compensation committee members as “independent” when – according to the record – they in fact had relationships that gave rise to potential conflicts of interest that should have been disclosed, and a “controlled mindset.” So, Chancellor McCormick concluded:

The record establishes that the Proxy failed to disclose the Compensation Committee members’ potential conflicts and omitted material information concerning the process. Defendants sought to prove otherwise, and they generally contend that the stockholder vote was fully informed because the most important facts about the Grant—the economic terms—were disclosed. But Defendants failed to carry their burden.

The case shows that process, common-sense thinking, and disclosure matter. If you’re involved in the compensation-setting and/or proxy drafting process, you may not win friends if you read everything with a critical eye and ask unwanted questions. It can be hard to find a way to do that tactfully. But now you have a case to point to that shows why it’s important.

– Meredith Ervine