ADVERTISEABOUT USSUBMIT A STORYSUBSCRIBETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICY
Visit our family of Brands

Judge once again rejects Texas-based Tesla's multi-billion-dollar pay package for Elon Musk — now what?

hard no

Lawyers for a Tesla shareholder who sued to block the pay package contended that shareholders who had voted for the 10-year plan in 2018 had been given misleading and incomplete information. Photo via cdn.britannica.com

For a second time, a Delaware judge has nullified a pay package that Tesla had awarded its CEO, Elon Musk, that once was valued at $56 billion.

Last week, Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick turned aside a request from Musk's lawyers to reverse a ruling she announced in January that had thrown out the compensation plan. The judge ruled then that Musk effectively controlled Tesla's board and had engineered the outsize pay package during sham negotiations.

Lawyers for a Tesla shareholder who sued to block the pay package contended that shareholders who had voted for the 10-year plan in 2018 had been given misleading and incomplete information.

In their defense, Tesla's board members asserted that the shareholders who ratified the pay plan a second time in June had done so after receiving full disclosures, thereby curing all the problems the judge had cited in her January ruling. As a result, they argued, Musk deserved the pay package for having raised Tesla's market value by billions of dollars.

McCormick rejected that argument. In her 103-page opinion, she ruled that under Delaware law, Tesla's lawyers had no grounds to reverse her January ruling “based on evidence they created after trial.”

What will Musk and Tesla do now?

On Monday night, Tesla posted on X, the social media platform owned by Musk, that the company will appeal. The appeal would be filed with the Delaware Supreme Court, the only state appellate court Tesla can pursue. Experts say a ruling would likely come in less than a year.

“The ruling, if not overturned, means that judges and plaintiffs' lawyers run Delaware companies rather than their rightful owners — the shareholders,” Tesla argued.

Later, on X, Musk unleashed a blistering attack on the judge, asserting that McCormick is “a radical far left activist cosplaying as a judge.”

What do experts say about the case?

Legal authorities generally suggest that McCormick’s ruling was sound and followed the law. Charles Elson, founding director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware, said that in his view, McCormick was right to rule that after Tesla lost its case in the original trial, it created improper new evidence by asking shareholders to ratify the pay package a second time.

Had she allowed such a claim, he said, it would cause a major shift in Delaware’s laws against conflicts of interest given the unusually close relationship between Musk and Tesla’s board.

“Delaware protects investors — that’s what she did,” said Elson, who has followed the court for more than three decades. “Just because you’re a ‘superstar CEO’ doesn’t put you in a separate category.”

Elson said he thinks investors would be reluctant to put money into Delaware companies if there were exceptions to the law for “special people.”

What will the Delaware Supreme Court do?

Elson said that in his opinion, the court is likely to uphold McCormick's ruling.

Can Tesla appeal to federal courts?

Experts say no. Rulings on state laws are normally left to state courts. Brian Dunn, program director for the Institute of Compensation Studies at Cornell University, said it's been his experience that Tesla has no choice but to stay in the Delaware courts for this compensation package.

Tesla has moved its legal headquarters to Texas. Does that matter?

The company could try to reconstitute the pay package and seek approval in Texas, where it may expect more friendlier judges. But Dunn, who has spent 40 years as an executive compensation consultant, said it's likely that some other shareholder would challenge the award in Texas because it's excessive compared with other CEOs' pay plans.

“If they just want to turn around and deliver him $56 billion, I can't believe somebody wouldn't want to litigate it,” Dunn said. “It's an unconscionable amount of money.”

Would a new pay package be even larger?

Almost certainly. Tesla stock is trading at 15 times the exercise price of stock options in the current package in Delaware, Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas wrote in a note to investors. Tesla's share price has doubled in the past six months, Jonas wrote. At Monday’s closing stock price, the Musk package is now worth $101.4 billion, according to Equilar, an executive data firm.

And Musk has asked for a subsequent pay package that would give him 25 percent of Tesla's voting shares. Musk has said he is uncomfortable moving further into artificial intelligence with the company if he doesn't have 25 percent control. He currently holds about 13 percent of Tesla's outstanding shares.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Property Showcase

What EPA’s carbon capture and storage permitting announcement means for Texas

The View From HETI

Earlier this month, Texas was granted authority by the federal government for permitting carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects. This move could help the U.S. cut emissions while staying competitive in the global energy game.

In June, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed approving Texas’ request for permitting authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) for Class VI underground injection wells for carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the state under a process called “primacy.” The State of Texas already has permitting authority for other injection wells (Classes I-V). In November, the EPA announced final approval of Texas’ primacy request.

Why This Matters for Texas

Texas is the headquarters for virtually every segment of the energy industry. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Texas is the top crude oil- and natural-gas producing state in the nation. The state has more crude oil refineries and refining capacity than any other state in the nation. Texas produces more electricity than any other state, and the demand for electricity will grow with the development of data centers and artificial intelligence (AI). Simply put, Texas is the backbone of the nation’s energy security and competitiveness. For the nation’s economic competitiveness, it is important that Texas continue to produce more energy with less emissions. CCS is widely regarded as necessary to continue to lower the emissions intensity of the U.S. industrial sector for critical products including power generation, refining, chemicals, steel, cement and other products that our country and world demand.

The Greater Houston Partnership’s Houston Energy Transition Initiative (HETI) has supported efforts to bring CCUS to a broader commercial scale since the initiative’s inception.

“Texas is uniquely positioned to deploy CCUS at scale, with world-class geology, a skilled workforce, and strong infrastructure. We applaud the EPA for granting Texas the authority to permit wells for CCUS, which we believe will result in safe and efficient permitting while advancing technologies that strengthen Texas’ leadership in the global energy market,” said Jane Stricker, Executive Director of HETI and Senior Vice President, Energy Transition at the Greater Houston Partnership.

What is Primacy, and Why is it Important?

Primacy grants permitting authority for Class VI wells for CCS to the Texas Railroad Commission instead of the EPA. Texas is required to follow the same strict standards the EPA uses. The EPA has reviewed Texas’ application and determined it meets those requirements.

Research suggests that Texas has strong geological formations for CO2 storage, a world-class, highly skilled workforce, and robust infrastructure primed for the deployment of CCS. However, federal permitting delays are stalling billions of dollars of private sector investment. There are currently 257 applications under review, nearly one-quarter of which are located in Texas, with some applications surpassing the EPA’s target review period of 24 months. This creates uncertainty for developers and investors and keeps thousands of potential jobs out of reach. By transferring permitting to the state, Texas will apply local resources to issue Class VI permits across the states in a timely manner.

Texas joins North Dakota, Wyoming, Louisiana, West Virginia and Arizona with the authority for regulating Class VI wells.

Is CCS safe?

A 2025 study by Texas A&M University reviewed operational history and academic literature on CCS in the United States. The study analyzed common concerns related to CCS efficacy and safety and found that CCS reduces pollutants including carbon dioxide, particulate matter, sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides. The research found that the risks of CCS present a low probability of impacting human life and can be effectively managed through existing state and federal regulations and technical monitoring and safety protocols.

What’s Next?

The final rule granting Texas’ primacy will become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Once in effect, the Texas Railroad Commission will be responsible for permitting wells for carbon capture, use and storage and enforcing their safe operation.

———

This article originally ran on the Greater Houston Partnership's Houston Energy Transition Initiative blog. HETI exists to support Houston's future as an energy leader. For more information about the Houston Energy Transition Initiative, EnergyCapitalHTX's presenting sponsor, visit htxenergytransition.org.

Houston energy expert: How the U.S. can turn carbon into growth

Guets Column

For the past 40 years, climate policy has often felt like two steps forward, one step back. Regulations shift with politics, incentives get diluted, and long-term aspirations like net-zero by 2050 seem increasingly out of reach. Yet greenhouse gases continue to rise, and the challenges they pose are not going away.

This matters because the costs are real. Extreme weather is already straining U.S. power grids, damaging homes, and disrupting supply chains. Communities are spending more on recovery while businesses face rising risks to operations and assets. So, how can the U.S. prepare and respond?

The Baker Institute Center for Energy Studies (CES) points to two complementary strategies. First, invest in large-scale public adaptation to protect communities and infrastructure. Second, reframe carbon as a resource, not just a waste stream to be reduced.

Why Focusing on Emissions Alone Falls Short

Peter Hartley argues that decades of global efforts to curb emissions have done little to slow the rise of CO₂. International cooperation is difficult, the costs are felt immediately, and the technologies needed are often expensive. Emissions reduction has been the central policy tool for decades, and it has been neither sufficient nor effective.

One practical response is adaptation, which means preparing for climate impacts we can’t avoid. Some of these measures are private, taken by households or businesses to reduce their own risks, such as farmers shifting crop types, property owners installing fire-resistant materials, or families improving insulation. Others are public goods that require policy action. These include building stronger levees and flood defenses, reinforcing power grids, upgrading water systems, revising building codes, and planning for wildfire risks. Such efforts protect people today while reducing long-term costs, and they work regardless of the source of extreme weather. Adaptation also does not depend on global consensus; each country, state, or city can act in its own interest. Many of these measures even deliver benefits beyond weather resilience, such as stronger infrastructure and improved security against broader threats.

McKinsey research reinforces this logic. Without a rapid scale-up of climate adaptation, the U.S. will face serious socioeconomic risks. These include damage to infrastructure and property from storms, floods, and heat waves, as well as greater stress on vulnerable populations and disrupted supply chains.

Making Carbon Work for Us

While adaptation addresses immediate risks, Ken Medlock points to a longer-term opportunity: turning carbon into value.

Carbon can serve as a building block for advanced materials in construction, transportation, power transmission, and agriculture. Biochar to improve soils, carbon composites for stronger and lighter products, and next-generation fuels are all examples. As Ken points out, carbon-to-value strategies can extend into construction and infrastructure. Beyond creating new markets, carbon conversion could deliver lighter and more resilient materials, helping the U.S. build infrastructure that is stronger, longer-lasting, and better able to withstand climate stress.

A carbon-to-value economy can help the U.S. strengthen its manufacturing base and position itself as a global supplier of advanced materials.

These solutions are not yet economic at scale, but smart policies can change that. Expanding the 45Q tax credit to cover carbon use in materials, funding research at DOE labs and universities, and supporting early markets would help create the conditions for growth.

Conclusion

Instead of choosing between “doing nothing” and “net zero at any cost,” we need a third approach that invests in both climate resilience and carbon conversion.

Public adaptation strengthens and improves the infrastructure we rely on every day, including levees, power grids, water systems, and building standards that protect communities from climate shocks. Carbon-to-value strategies can complement these efforts by creating lighter, more resilient carbon-based infrastructure.

CES suggests this combination is a pragmatic way forward. As Peter emphasizes, adaptation works because it is in each nation’s self-interest. And as Ken reminds us, “The U.S. has a comparative advantage in carbon. Leveraging it to its fullest extent puts the U.S. in a position of strength now and well into the future.”

-----------

Scott Nyquist is a senior advisor at McKinsey & Company and vice chairman, Houston Energy Transition Initiative of the Greater Houston Partnership. The views expressed herein are Nyquist's own and not those of McKinsey & Company or of the Greater Houston Partnership. This article originally appeared on LinkedIn.

UH launches new series on AI’s impact on the energy sector

where to be

The University of Houston's Energy Transition Institute has launched a new Energy in Action Seminar Series that will feature talks focused on the intersection of the energy industry and digitization trends, such as AI.

The first event in the series took place earlier this month, featuring Raiford Smith, global market lead for power & energy for Google Cloud, who presented "AI, Energy, and Data Centers." The talk discussed the benefits of widespread AI adoption for growth in traditional and low-carbon energy resources.

Future events include:

“Through this timely and informative seminar series, ETI will bring together energy professionals, researchers, students, and anyone working in or around digital innovation in energy," Debalina Sengupta, chief operating officer of ETI, said in a news release. "We encourage industry members and students to register now and reap the benefits of participating in both the seminar and the reception, which presents a fantastic opportunity to stay ahead of industry developments and build a strong network in the Greater Houston energy ecosystem.”

The series is slated to continue throughout 2026. Each presentation is followed by a one-hour networking reception. Register for the next event here.

View All Listings