Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

[Artful Dodger]

Not going to give you a "disagree" for this, but as an attorney I'd like to generally inform TMC readers that this is factually incorrect. The Burden of Proof in general lies on the plaintiff but there are exceptions.

Lawyers ALWAYS make exemptions. That's how they make their coin, and prevent common sense from prevailing. We see exactly that in Delaware, where a motivated outcome was tortured out of the flimseyiest, most unsupported exemption: The Court did not show that the relationship between the Board and the CEO was unusual, was unknow to shareholders (who also voted in those same Directors), or in any way caused harm to Shareholders. Specifically, the Court admits they don't know what 'fair compensation' was, but are trying to claim retroactively 'that's not it'. Its B.S. and 71% of shareholders know it.

In certain cases the Judge can rule that putting the burden of proof on a certain party is unreasonable, for example in situations where it is clear the defendant is the only party that is privy to certain information needed to provide said proof. (Information that the Judge knows exists (with 100% certainty) but is kept out of the case by the defendant for example).

Why even bring this up unless you have some indication that was the case in Delaware v. Musk? (I know that's not the case name; added for rhetorical impact). Irrelevant.

Just an FYI. Not applied to the Elon compensation package case.

So you've added smoke, not light? Thanks?

 

[MikeC]

Google created Class C shares after going public ...

https://money.usnews.com/investing/articles/goog-vs-googl-stock-difference

Pre IPO
When Google first went public in 2004, the company created two classes of common stock. Google sold shares of its Class A stock to the public. Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, along with other Google executives, retained Class B shares

Post IPO
In 2014, Google underwent an unconventional stock split that created a third common stock class. Google completed a 2-for-1 split of its public Class A stock and created a new Class C stock that had no voting rights whatsoever

+ Due to the company's incorporating documents, as well as Delaware law, all classes of stock are perfectly equal except in regards to voting

So add cheaper non-voting shares and buy back voting ones. I’d convert my voting shares to non-voting for a ~20% bigger position.

 

[Artful Dodger]

Sounds like you didn't read what the judge wrote.

Sounds like you accepted it hook, line, and sinker. That ruling is a house of cards, build on the flimsiest of foundations, that Shareholders didn't know, aren't responsible for their own due diligence, and would have voted differently if so informed.

The Court didn't show that investors were harmed; just the opposite. So it talks about process, in hindsight. This is a motivated ruling, taking 14 months to craft, before reaching the desired outcome.

Investors can read, and the whole story isn't on the paper.

 

[heltok]

Some good thoughts about FSD V12:

 

[NicoV]

I’ve seen the NACS to CCS adapter. It’s not that big. Comparable to the CCS adapter for teslas.

I was always afraid I’d lose that adapter on a roadtrip. Not good for peace-of-mind.

 

[SOULPEDL]

Since Elon Musk’s $56 billion Tesla pay package overruled by Delaware court, does that mean he will never get the 25% of TSLA stock that is demanding?

He is not demanding stock. He wants voting power (and don't say so he can take over, you can't do anything with 25% on your own.)

A new deal is likely in the works. Currently, Tesla voting is according to shares. The hope is that somehow this 1:1 relationship is disconnected so he has power needed, and not so much about the money (his statements).

We're all just guessing at this point, but his motive and concern is clear and genuine where AI is concerned. Did you think the gov't has control over this? They have nothing as far as I can tell. I could be early, but I bet this is mostly about protecting our country from future monsters for National Defense. Microsoft and Google are likely gonna do what they want, and they're probably going to help write any new laws. So far there are none that I can see.

 

[Artful Dodger]

I just don't understand why the board being friends/lovers/comrades/shipmates/countrymen/neighbors/brothers/spouses/whatever even matters. The shareholders voted to approve it. Nothing else should matter. If shareholders felt they weren't getting a good deal out of it, they would have voted against it.

This is exactly why it took 14 month from the trial until the release of the ruling. The judge needed to find some bullshit lawyerese saying that 'ooh, you weren't informed' about the relationship of independant board members. The same board members the shareholders voted in.

Note the judge presented no finding of wrongdoing, only a supposition that they might have got a better deal. Easy in hindsight wot? That's the benefit of being a judge, always in hindsight, take as much time as you need to arrive at your pre-determined conclusion. Disgusting. Shareholders don't have the luxury of hindsight, or unlimite4d itme to make a decision. The Market moves in real-time.

 

[Artful Dodger]

From what I read the problem was which board members did the negations from Tesla's side vs Elon on the comp package. If said person/people were seen to be mates then it could be seen as not a proper negotiation. I would have voted for the package also (can't vote as my shares are in UK) it's not about if the package was fair or not or whether the share holders approved it, but about how it was negotiated and by whom. Im not saying the Judge was correct here just explaining the decision.

I know, please don't be deterred, we appreciate you! (should I now switch to 'adversarial' Dodger lest this be recinded in Malaware?)

In other news: Things that make you say JEEBUS!



Cheers to the Longs!

 

[elasalle]

the only way to try and affect the next vote on Elon's comps ... is to buy more shares ... hence we green today let the fun begin ...

Just imagine Elon haters buying Tesla shares so they can vote

 

[hobbes]

Some good thoughts about FSD V12:

Nice! First thought someone else than Omar had gotten V12, but this is almost as good, as AIDRVR has called out weaknesses of FSD beta in his videos. Seeing him that excited makes me hopeful..

 

[LuckyManX]

I was always afraid I’d lose that adapter on a roadtrip. Not good for peace-of-mind.

I'd suggest wrapping a band of bright orange electrical tape around your adapter. I did my J1772 adapters and it's really hard to miss. Good luck, and thanks for supporting Tesla!

 

[wipster]

I think this guy has it right:

 

[Artful Dodger]

Why not? There are multiple indexes although S&P500

Do you remember the S&P 500 inclusion day, Dec 19, 2020? Over 200M shares traded in the Closing Cross alone that day, primarily bought by passive index funds. If TSLA is removed from the NDX, then those funds will sell all their TSLA.

 

[SmokyPeat]

Since Elon Musk’s $56 billion Tesla pay package overruled by Delaware court, does that mean he will never get the 25% of TSLA stock that is demanding?

Yes, I'd say that's a pretty safe assumption. He'll land on his feet. Undoubtedly he saw which way the wind was blowing in Delaware and got a bit ruffled.

 

[SOULPEDL]

That darn 185 showed up...
(MP is 190)

 

[unk45]

So yer sayin' I should buy 9 shares of Boeing? That doesn't sound right...

Sure if you're up to do that. Maybe you want to fly a MAX 9 on your next flight!
Maybe not, your posts are too interesting.

 

[Artful Dodger]

Has anyone got to the bottom of who's really behind the 9 share no-mark?

Scaramouche, obs.

 

[unk45]

I was always afraid I’d lose that adapter on a roadtrip. Not good for peace-of-mind.

I still have all of mine from 2014, although it's been some years since I've used one. Back then the CHAdeMO came in very handy many times, and so did several others.

 

[Andy O]

The Court didn't show that investors were harmed;

If the agreement between Musk and the Board was arrived at improperly, then a better remedy than rescinding the contract so long after its terms were carried out would have been to require Musk and the Board members to pay damages to the shareholders according to the amount of damage done to their interests by the contract. The major difficulty in this is that the shareholders seem to have benefitted tremendously from the contract, not been damaged by it. The judge, based on the summaries here that I've read, has said that such a remedy (paying damages) is not available to her under the laws of Delaware.

 

[Discoducky]

Some good thoughts about FSD V12:

Really good breakdown of why V12 is not only much better, but also held back from wider release. Well worth a watch and great job to AIDrivr!