TBD

Future of Elon Musk, Tesla on the line this week as shareholders vote on massive pay package

Shareholders of the electric vehicle and solar panel company are voting on the package, with the results to be tabulated at Tesla's June 13 annual meeting. Photo via cdn.britannica.com

If Tesla shareholders vote against restoring Elon Musk's $44.9 billion pay package Thursday, the CEO could deliver on threats to take artificial intelligence research to one of his other companies. Or he could even could walk away.

If they approve the all-stock compensation package that was thrown out by a Delaware judge in January, it would almost guarantee he would remain at the company he grew to be the world leader in electric vehicles, shifting to AI and robotics including autonomous vehicles, which Musk says is Tesla's future.

But even with reapproval at Thursday's annual shareholders' meeting, which many analysts say is likely, there would be uncertainty. Musk has threatened on X, his social media platform, to develop AI elsewhere if he doesn't get a 25 percent stake in Tesla (He owns about 13 percent now). Musk's xAI recently received $6 billion in funding to develop artificial intelligence.

Wedbush Analyst Dan Ives said he expects the package to be overwhelmingly reapproved, ending a lot of uncertainty with Musk. “This issue has been an overhang on Tesla’s stock, and this will be important to move this distraction in the rearview mirror,” Ives wrote in a note to investors.

Shares of Tesla Inc. have slumped more than 30 percent this year with the company warning of “notably lower” sales growth in 2024.

Also on the shareholder ballot is the related issue of moving the electric vehicle maker's legal home out of Delaware to Texas.

The move is designed to escape from the Delaware court's oversight and possibly a ruling from Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick that invalidated Musk's pay package. In a January opinion on a shareholder lawsuit, the judge determined that Musk controlled the Tesla board and is not entitled to the landmark package once worth nearly $56 billion.

Multiple institutional investors have come out against that sizeable payout, some citing falling vehicle sales, price cuts and the tumbling Tesla stock price. But Tesla's top five institutional shareholders, Vanguard, BlackRock, State Street, Geode Capital, and Capital Research either said they don't announce their votes or wouldn't comment. They control about 17 percent of the votes.

Erik Gordon, a business and law professor at the University of Michigan, said individual shareholders are likely to vote for the package, and they own more than half of Tesla's shares.

One institutional investor who came out against the package is California's State Teachers Retirement System. The large pension fund said Tuesday that it would vote against Musk's pay "based on its sheer magnitude, and because the award would be extremely dilutive to shareholders. We also have concerns with the lack of focus on profitability for the company.”

In May, two big shareholder advisory firms, ISS and Glass Lewis, recommended voting against the package.

But Tesla and Musk have unleashed a furious lobbying effort to get the package approved, in posts on X, television appearances and in proxy filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

“Only 2 days left to protect & help grow the value of your investment in $TSLA by voting FOR ratification of the 2018 CEO Performance Award,” Tesla posted on X early Tuesday.

Tesla Chairwoman Robyn Denholm, in a letter to shareholders, wrote that the package was approved by 73 percent of the vote six years ago. “Because the Delaware Court second-guessed your decision, Elon has not been paid for any of his work for Tesla for the past six years that has helped to generate significant growth and stockholder value. That strikes us — and the many stockholders from whom we already have heard — as fundamentally unfair, and inconsistent with the will of the stockholders who voted for it,” she wrote.

Tesla has said the 2018 award incentivized Musk to create over $735 billion in value for shareholders in the six years since it was approved.

If Tesla finalizes the vote on moving the company's legal home to Texas before the vote on Musk’s pay package, and it manages to file the paperwork in Austin and get approval of the move, then the effect of the Delaware court ruling could be in doubt. Reapproval of the pay package would then be done as a Texas corporation and could fall under the purview of Texas courts.

Anticipating a quick move by Tesla, lawyers for the shareholder who filed the lawsuit seeking to block Musk’s pay deal, Richard Tornetta, filed motions in Delaware last month seeking an order stopping Tesla from trying to move the case. Tesla responded in letters to the judge that there is no cause for such concerns because they won’t seek a move. Besides, Tesla would still be a Delaware corporation at the time of this week's shareholder vote, they wrote.

In an order denying Tornetta’s motions, Chancellor McCormick wrote that she interprets Tesla’s letters to mean it has no intention of relocating the case to Texas. “The defendants’ statements give me great comfort,” she wrote.

Eric Talley, a Columbia University law professor, said the lawyers are unlikely to try to move the case because their livelihood is handling business cases in Delaware courts.

But it’s also possible that the unpredictable Musk could change lawyers.

McCormick, Talley said, is telling the lawyers “OK, I’m going to believe you, but I’m going to be really irritated if this is a big send up for these things that you said you’re not going to do.”

Talley, who also is a Tesla shareholder and said at present he plans to vote against Musk’s pay, expects Tesla to follow through with appealing McCormick’s ruling to the Delaware Supreme Court.

Trending News

A View From HETI

ExxonMobil Chairman and CEO Darren Woods said the company was weighing whether it would move forward with a proposed $7 billion low-hydrogen plant in Baytown this summer. Photo via exxonmobil.com

As anticipated, Spring-based oil and gas giant ExxonMobil has paused plans to build a low-hydrogen plant in Baytown, Chairman and CEO Darren Woods told Reuters.

“The suspension of the project, which had already experienced delays, reflects a wider slowdown in efforts by traditional oil and gas firms to transition to cleaner energy sources as many of the initiatives struggle to turn a profit,” Reuters reported.

Woods signaled during ExxonMobil’s second-quarter earnings call that the company was weighing whether it would move forward with the proposed $7 billion plant.

The Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act established a 10-year incentive, the 45V tax credit, for production of clean hydrogen. But under President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the period for beginning construction of low-carbon hydrogen projects that qualify for the tax credit has been compressed. The Inflation Reduction Act called for construction to begin by 2033. The Big Beautiful Bill changed the construction start time to early 2028.

“While our project can meet this timeline, we’re concerned about the development of a broader market, which is critical to transition from government incentives,” Woods said during the earnings call.

Woods had said ExxonMobil was figuring out whether a combination of the 45Q tax credit for carbon capture projects and the revised 45V tax credit would enable a broader market for low-carbon hydrogen.

“If we can’t see an eventual path to a market-driven business, we won’t move forward with the [Baytown] project,” Woods told Wall Street analysts.

“We knew that helping to establish a brand-new product and a brand-new market initially driven by government policy would not be easy or advance in a straight line,” he added.

ExxonMobil announced in 2022 that it would build the low-carbon hydrogen plant at its refining and petrochemical complex in Baytown. The company had indicated the plant would start initial production in 2027.

ExxonMobil had said the Baytown plant would produce up to 1 billion cubic feet of hydrogen per day made from natural gas, and capture and store more than 98 percent of the associated carbon dioxide. The plant would have been capable of storing as much as 10 million metric tons of CO2 per year.

Trending News