In a filing with federal regulators early Wednesday, the company said it would ask shareholders to vote on both issues during its annual meeting on June 13. Photo via Getty Images

Tesla will ask shareholders to reinstate a $56 billion compensation package for CEO Elon Musk that was rejected by a judge in Delaware this year, and to move the electric car maker’s corporate home from Delaware to Texas.

In a filing with federal regulators early Wednesday, the company said it would ask shareholders to vote on both issues during its annual meeting on June 13.

In January, Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick ruled that Musk is not entitled to a landmark compensation package awarded by Tesla’s board of directors that is potentially worth about $55.8 billion over 10 years starting in 2018.

Five years ago, a Tesla shareholder lawsuit alleged that the pay package should be voided because it was dictated by Musk and was the product of sham negotiations with directors who were not independent of him.

Musk said a month after the judge's ruling that he would try to move Tesla's corporate listing to Texas, where he has already moved company headquarters.

Almost immediately after the judge's ruling, Musk did exactly that with Neuralink, his privately held brain implant company, moving its corporate home from Delaware to Nevada.

In a letter to shareholders this week, Chairperson Robyn Denholm said that Musk has delivered on the growth it was looking for at the automaker, with Tesla meeting all of the stock value and operational targets in a 2018 CEO pay package that was approved by shareholders.

“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,” Denholm wrote. “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.”

Tesla posted record deliveries of more than 1.8 million electric vehicles worldwide in 2023, according to a regulatory filing. But the value its shares has eroded quickly this year as sales of electric vehicles soften.

Future growth is in doubt and it may be a challenge to get shareholders to back a fat pay package in an environment where competition has increased worldwide and demand for electric vehicle sales is fading.

Tesla's shares have lost more than one third of their value this year as massive price cuts have failed to draw more buyers. The company said it delivered 386,810 vehicles from January through March, nearly 9% fewer than it sold in the same period last year.

Shareholders also will be asked to cast a nonbinding advisory vote on 2023 executive compensation.

But the proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission does not address Musk’s demand to own 25% of Tesla shares for him to pursue artificial intelligence and robotics at the company. At present he owns 20.5% of the company.

In January Musk challenged the Tesla board in a post on X, the social media platform he now owns, to come up with a new compensation package. Unless he gets 25%, he wrote that he’d prefer to build products outside of Tesla, apparently with another company.

Wedbush analyst Dan Ives, who is normally bullish on Tesla, said in an interview that the filing doesn't address multiple issues including Musk's future compensation.

“It's the elephant in the room because Musk has threatened over X, and it's been a massive overhang" for Tesla stock, Ives said.

Musk, he said, needs to commit to being Tesla CEO for three to five years and developing artificial intelligence with the company. When the company announces first-quarter earnings next week, Musk needs to spell out plans for future growth, including the status of the Model 2, a small EV that costs about $25,000, Ives said. Otherwise, dark days lie ahead, he said.

“Investors are not just taking Musk's word,” he said. “There's a feeling like the plane is crashing into the ocean and the board is focused on their own salted peanuts.”

Musk has less leverage than he did in January because of this year's stock slide. “He went from Cinderella story to the Nightmare on Elm Street in a matter of six months,” Ives said.

At the time of the Delaware court ruling, Musk’s package was worth more than $55.8 billion, but the court may have cost the mercurial CEO over $10 billion due to the company’s stock slide this year. The filing said Musk’s 2018 compensation was worth $44.9 billion at the close of trading on April 12.

Since last year, Tesla has cut prices as much as $20,000 on some models. The price cuts caused used electric vehicle values to drop and clipped Tesla’s profit margins.

This week, Tesla said it was letting about 10% of its workers go, about 14,000 people.

In the filing, Tesla's board wrote that the decision to seek shareholder approval of Musk's 2018 pay package was made by the board after it received a report from a special committee of one board member, Kathleen Wilson-Thompson.

The board wrote that if there is any significant vote against future executive pay packages, “we will consider our stockholders' concerns, and the compensation committee will evaluate whether any actions are necessary to address those concerns.”

Shares of Tesla Inc., which slid another 8% this week, fell about 1% Wednesday.

The electric car company's CEO said early Thursday that Tesla would get shareholders to vote on whether to switch its corporate registration to Texas, where its physical headquarters is located. Photo courtesy of Tesla

Tesla investors potentially to vote on switching the carmaker's corporate registration to Texas

to be or not to be

Elon Musk wants Tesla investors to decide on moving the company's corporate listing to Texas after a Delaware court decided he shouldn't get a multibillion-dollar pay package.

The electric car company's CEO said early Thursday that Tesla would get shareholders to vote on whether to switch its corporate registration to Texas, where its physical headquarters is located.

“Tesla will move immediately to hold a shareholder vote to transfer state of incorporation to Texas,” Musk wrote on his social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter.

Musk had polled X users earlier on the same question, with 87.1% of 1.1 million respondents voting yes. “The public vote is unequivocally in favor of Texas!” he wrote.

Musk, who has previously polled people on X before making decisions, moved Tesla's headquarters to Austin, Texas, from California in 2021.

His announcement comes after a judge in Delaware, where the company is currently registered, ruled last Tuesday that Musk is not entitled to a landmark compensation package potentially worth more than $55 billion that was awarded by Tesla’s board of directors.

After the ruling, Musk took to social media to to express his displeasure.

“Never incorporate your company in the state of Delaware,” he wrote in one post. He later added, “I recommend incorporating in Nevada or Texas if you prefer shareholders to decide matters.”

The ruling came five years after shareholders filed a lawsuit accusing Musk and Tesla directors of breaching their duties and arguing that the pay package was a product of sham negotiations with directors who were not independent of him.

The defense countered that the pay plan was fairly negotiated by a compensation committee whose members were independent and had lofty performance milestones.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

New UH white paper pushes for national plastics recycling policy

plastics paper

The latest white paper from the University of Houston’s Energy Transition Institute analyzes how the U.S. currently handles plastics recycling and advocates for a national, policy-driven approach.

Ramanan Krishnamoorti, vice president for energy and innovation at UH; Debalina Sengupta, assistant vice president and chief operating officer at the Energy Transition Institute; and UH researcher Aparajita Datta authored the paper titled “Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for Plastics Packaging: Gaps, Challenges and Opportunities for Policies in the United States.” In the paper, the scientists argue that the current mix of state laws and limited recycling infrastructure are holding back progress at the national level.

EPR policies assign responsibility for the end-of-life management of plastic packaging to producers or companies, instead of taxpayers, to incentivize better product design and reduce waste.

“My hope is this research will inform government agencies on what policies could be implemented that would improve how we approach repurposing plastics in the U.S.,” Krishnamoorti said in a news release. “Not only will this information identify policies that help reduce waste, but they could also prove to be a boon to the circular economy as they can identify economically beneficial pathways to recycle materials.”

The paper notes outdated recycling infrastructure and older technology as roadblocks.

Currently, only seven states have passed EPR laws for plastic packaging. Ten others are looking to pass similar measures, but each looks different, according to UH. Additionally, each state also has its own reporting system, which leads to incompatible datasets. Developing national EPR policies or consistent nationwide standards could lead to cleaner and more efficient processes, the report says.

The researchers also believe that investing in sorting, processing facilities, workforce training and artificial intelligence could alleviate issues for businesses—and particularly small businesses, which often lack the resources to manage complex reporting systems. Digital infrastructure techniques and moving away from manual data collection could also help.

Public education on recycling would also be “imperative” to the success of new policies, the report adds.

“Experts repeatedly underscored that public education and awareness about EPR, including among policymakers, are dismal,” the report reads. “Infrastructural limitations, barriers to access and the prevailing belief that curbside recycling is ineffective in the U.S. contribute to public dissatisfaction, misinformation and, in some cases, opposition toward the use of taxpayers’ and ratepayers’ contributions for EPR.”

For more information, read the full paper here.

Investment bank opens energy-focused office in Houston

new to hou

Investment bank Cohen & Co. Capital Markets has opened a Houston office to serve as the hub of its energy advisory business and has tapped investment banking veteran Rahul Jasuja as the office’s leader.

Jasuja joined Cohen & Co. Capital Markets, a subsidiary of financial services company Cohen & Co., as managing director, and head of energy and energy transition investment banking. Cohen’s capital markets arm closed $44 billion worth of deals last year.

Jasuja previously worked at energy-focused Houston investment bank Mast Capital Advisors, where he was managing director of investment banking. Before Mast Capital, Jasuja was director of energy investment banking in the Houston office of Wells Fargo Securities.

“Meeting rising [energy] demand will require disciplined capital allocation across traditional energy, sustainable fuels, and firm, dispatchable solutions such as nuclear and geothermal,” Jasuja said in a news release. “Houston remains the center of gravity where capital, operating expertise, and execution come together to make that transition investable.”

The Houston office will focus on four energy verticals:

  • Energy systems such as nuclear and geothermal
  • Energy supply chains
  • Energy-transition fuel and technology
  • Traditional energy
“We are making a committed investment in Houston because we believe the infrastructure powering AI, defense, and energy transition — from nuclear to rare-earth technology — represents the next secular cycle of value creation,” Jerry Serowik, head of Cohen & Co. Capital Markets, added in the release.

Houston cleantech startup Helix Earth lands $1.2M NSF grant

federal funding

Renewable equipment manufacturer Helix Earth Technologies is one of three Houston-based companies to secure federal funding through the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Phase II grant program in recent months.

The company—which was founded based on NASA technology, spun out of Rice University and has been incubated at Greentown Labs—has received approximately $1.2 million from the National Science Foundation to develop its high-efficiency retrofit dehumidification systems that aim to reduce the energy consumption of commercial AC units. The company reports that its technology has the potential to cut AC energy use by up to 50 percent.

"This award validates our vision and propels our impact forward with valuable research funding and the prestige of the NSF stamp of approval," Rawand Rasheed, Helix CEO and founder, shared in a LinkedIn post. "This award is a reflection our exceptional team's grit, expertise, and collaborative spirit ... This is just the beginning as we continue pushing for a sustainable future."

Two other Houston-area companies also landed $1.2 million in NSF SBIR Phase II funding during the same period:

  • Resilitix Intelligence, a disaster AI startup that was founded shortly after Hurricane Harvey, that works to "reduce the human and economic toll of disasters" by providing local and state organizations and emergency response teams with near-real-time, AI-driven insights to improve response speed, save lives and accelerate recovery
  • Conroe-based Fluxworks Inc., founded in 2021 at Texas A&M, which provides magnetic gear technology for the space industry that has the potential to significantly enhance in-space manufacturing and unlock new capabilities for industries by allowing advanced research and manufacturing in microgravity

The three grants officially rolled out in early September 2025 and are expected to run through August 2027, according to the NSF. The SBIR Phase II grants support in-depth research and development of ideas that showed potential for commercialization after receiving Phase I grants from government agencies.

However, congressional authority for the program, often called "America's seed fund," expired on September 30, 2025, and has stalled since the recent government shutdown. Government agencies cannot issue new grants until Congress agrees on a path forward. According to SBIR.gov, "if no further action is taken by Congress, federal agencies may not be able to award funding under SBIR/STTR programs and SBIR/STTR solicitations may be delayed, cancelled, or rescinded."