-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Wiki Selling TSLA Options - Be the House
- Thread starter adiggs
- Start date
This is not a possible outcome, at least not as of now: "Taken together, it looks likely that the pay package will be reinstated" as it is currently rescinded by the Delaware Chance-your-arm court
All up to the judge from here, and I would strongly assume that this current vote would be excluded from any consideration of the past vote and conclusions thus far drawn by that judge
All up to the judge from here, and I would strongly assume that this current vote would be excluded from any consideration of the past vote and conclusions thus far drawn by that judge
Exactly! Many are thinking 6/13 decides the issue. Not at all. It’s just a step to help boost the appeal if the vote is in favor. It’s in no way material other than for a great news line and play on non-knowledgeable people’s emotions and make the stock volatile.
That’s just about what I paid back in June 2018 for my LR M3 (1.7% for 36 months)..
This plus FSD transfer and I MIGHT, MIGHT jump on a new highland. They do look really nice and they make ZERO sound going by.. no wind friction noise or even real tire noise.. it’s like they are hovering on the ground when going by.
Yeh! I got my 2022 refreshed Model X at 1.74% / 65 months from DCU at the end of 2021. Loving the rate, not loving the drop in value of my Model X though over the same time (was $110k w/FSD, six-seater, premium color)
Why wouldn’t it decide the issue? They can invalidate the 2018 vote but is the thinking that they will then invalidate this one as well?
From my understanding this vote has ZERO legal bearing on the viability of the comp and case or causing the judge to do anything. It’s helpful only for the appeals planned. Glad to be corrected if my understanding is wrong!
It won’t affect the 2018 decision. But this is an official new vote - wouldn’t there have to be a new case to invalidate it? How could a judge say because the 2018 one is illegal, the 2024 one (where they remedied the courts’ concerns) is also illegal?
Because this one isn’t a vote for a new compensation package, only to re-ratify the previous one. If the previous one is ultimately deemed legally void and invalid, there’s nothing to re-ratify.
They specifically didn’t put forth a new compensation package, I believe they are waiting until the move to Texas is approved and happens. Plus it will be more expensive apparently to do it that way. See Robyn Denholms interview today with Sorkin on TV.
Closed out all my CCs for this week yesterday. They are pretty much 90%+. My plan was to open new CCs for next week if we have a up day today or tomorrow. I thought twice about it as next week is the annual shareholders meeting. This is a binary event with some important items on the voting docket and I nearly swear off from selling CCs as I been burned in the past many many times. If we get another up day tomorrow I may sell a handful of ccs at most. At this point I am more inclined to sell actual shares to free up some cash in the event many of the items don't pass.
thenewguy1979
"The" Dog
Mine was 1.5 during COVID. My mortgage was 2.75. Aint seeing that in my lifetime again based on this Market.Yeh! I got my 2022 refreshed Model X at 1.74% / 65 months from DCU at the end of 2021. Loving the rate, not loving the drop in value of my Model X though over the same time (was $110k w/FSD, six-seater, premium color)
In other news. NVDA closed a hair under 1211.
TSLA 1st green candle in 5 day. but still dead center on BB line.
Yeh! I got my 2022 refreshed Model X at 1.74% / 65 months from DCU at the end of 2021. Loving the rate, not loving the drop in value of my Model X though over the same time (was $110k w/FSD, six-seater, premium color)
My 2021 $136k Model S Plaid is worth $56k as trade-in according to Tesla with 17k miles. I got Musked.
Imagine using that $136k to buy TSLA in 2021
wait...
you actually dodged a bullet there.
I don't see how this would even have any bearing on appeal. The judges verdict is based on what happened in 2018, not now, surely current events cannot brought to bear on a judgement based on events in the past?
OK, I'm no lawyer, but seems logical for me
Is it in fact a new compensation package that has no relation to the previous and will actually become valid if the majority vote YES? Have to admit I did go into the details there
If that's the case then Elon will get his previous package back, but legally different from the one in the ongoing court case, just identical
Then the current case will be challenged and appealed to get any payout to the plaintiffs minimised as much as possible
Last edited:
<Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, and this is not legal analysis or legal advice in any way. This post will happily be edited / deleted if those more authoritative can chime in with more concrete perspectives, and any corrections to the below would be appreciated if there is something incorrect.>
There were numerous issues identified by the DE judge regarding the prior vote, which may be exacerbated, not remediated, by holding this vote again. Three in particular which seem to be worsened by sending the original package out for another vote are:
1. Issues around boardmember independence while 'negotiating' the original agreement. Not materially address prior to the Board of Directors re-sending the original deal back out to be voted on.
2. Issues with the boardmembers not having actually 'negotiated' the original deal at arms length (vs moving forward with what Mr. Musk proposed). Not materially addressed by sending this back out to be voted on...despite Tesla having added a couple of 'advisors', the idea that the same deal is being sent back out seems...odd. The idea that, years later, having now executed real 'negotiations' to remediate the fault identified by the court, they answer was the exact same deal is quite questionable.
3. Issues around communication of #1 and #2 to the voting shareholders. While the amount of communication from Tesla regarding this vote is indeed greater than before, these communications from Tesla are not conveying anything about #1 or #2 at all, and the argument that "The voting shareholders have already heard about these from other media" would not seem to be a winning argument.
The one area that perhaps Tesla is hoping for is that the original agreement passed with a majority of the votes cast, *not* a majority of all votes available to be cast. This is a huge difference, in this instance. Had the plan been approved by the majority of all votes available to be cast, then the burden of proof to disqualify the pay plan would have been on the plaintiff (the shareholder(s) suing Tesla). However, since the plan was passed only with a majority of the votes actually cast, the burden of proof was on Tesla and the Board of Directors to show that the plan was conducted independently, actually negotiated at arms length, and in the best interest of shareholders. Perhaps the Board of Directors are hoping it will pass this time with a majority of all shareholder votes available to be cast? Seems like a longshot, and surprising that this hope might be worth the risk of seemingly compounding #1 and #2 above...
The other quite interesting aspect will be those compensation plan milestones which were attained, but which have been 'unattained' in recent quarters and/or are in danger of being 'unattained' in the near-term future quarters. For each of these, one could certainly consider whether:
A) Did the board fail in its duties because it did not negotiate milestones / contractual language that would ensure these are achieved in a sustainable-and-actually-sustained way?
and/or
B) Did Mr. Musk fail to achieve these in a way that was sustainable-and-actually-sustained, achieving them only in un-sustained ways?
Next week will be quite interesting, and it doesn't seem clear how best to position for it.
There were numerous issues identified by the DE judge regarding the prior vote, which may be exacerbated, not remediated, by holding this vote again. Three in particular which seem to be worsened by sending the original package out for another vote are:
1. Issues around boardmember independence while 'negotiating' the original agreement. Not materially address prior to the Board of Directors re-sending the original deal back out to be voted on.
2. Issues with the boardmembers not having actually 'negotiated' the original deal at arms length (vs moving forward with what Mr. Musk proposed). Not materially addressed by sending this back out to be voted on...despite Tesla having added a couple of 'advisors', the idea that the same deal is being sent back out seems...odd. The idea that, years later, having now executed real 'negotiations' to remediate the fault identified by the court, they answer was the exact same deal is quite questionable.
3. Issues around communication of #1 and #2 to the voting shareholders. While the amount of communication from Tesla regarding this vote is indeed greater than before, these communications from Tesla are not conveying anything about #1 or #2 at all, and the argument that "The voting shareholders have already heard about these from other media" would not seem to be a winning argument.
The one area that perhaps Tesla is hoping for is that the original agreement passed with a majority of the votes cast, *not* a majority of all votes available to be cast. This is a huge difference, in this instance. Had the plan been approved by the majority of all votes available to be cast, then the burden of proof to disqualify the pay plan would have been on the plaintiff (the shareholder(s) suing Tesla). However, since the plan was passed only with a majority of the votes actually cast, the burden of proof was on Tesla and the Board of Directors to show that the plan was conducted independently, actually negotiated at arms length, and in the best interest of shareholders. Perhaps the Board of Directors are hoping it will pass this time with a majority of all shareholder votes available to be cast? Seems like a longshot, and surprising that this hope might be worth the risk of seemingly compounding #1 and #2 above...
The other quite interesting aspect will be those compensation plan milestones which were attained, but which have been 'unattained' in recent quarters and/or are in danger of being 'unattained' in the near-term future quarters. For each of these, one could certainly consider whether:
A) Did the board fail in its duties because it did not negotiate milestones / contractual language that would ensure these are achieved in a sustainable-and-actually-sustained way?
and/or
B) Did Mr. Musk fail to achieve these in a way that was sustainable-and-actually-sustained, achieving them only in un-sustained ways?
Next week will be quite interesting, and it doesn't seem clear how best to position for it.
this is then gonna be like election denial. Delaware will look lousier by the day ...
what say we give him this comp package,
and then if he agrees to make Tesla bigger than AARMCO/APPL combined give him another insane package?
I think the company you’re thinking of is/was Nikola
I think they only didn’t put forth a new one because they haven’t moved yet. So It was simplest to re-ratify the identical one, but they’re doing it while addressing the courts disclosure concerns this time. It should make the courts decision moot, even though it doesn’t affect the judge’s decision in that case itself.
Sorry for the off-topic but it’s a key distinction if this vote is a real thing or not.
Not really, the issues the judge had with the vote in 2018 are not affected by another vote now, that's the point
And yes, he should have that previous package "reinstated", everyone that voted for it know what they were voting for, who cares if Elon wrote it himself and had the BoD sign it, doesn't change anything. The targets and options rewarded for each were clear, how it was derived has no relevance
Similar threads
