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.

Defense attorneys say the vote makes clear that Tesla shareholders, with full knowledge of the flaws in the 2018 process that McCormick pointed out in her January ruling, are adamant that Musk is entitled to the pay package. Photo via cdn.britannica.com

Tesla attorneys ask judge to vacate decision invalidating massive pay package for Elon Musk

a request

Attorneys for Elon Musk and Tesla’s corporate directors are asking a Delaware judge to vacate her ruling requiring the company to rescind a massive and unprecedented pay package for Musk.

Friday's hearing follows a January ruling in which Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick concluded that Musk engineered the landmark 2018 pay package in sham negotiations with directors who were not independent. The compensation package initially carried a potential maximum value of about $56 billion, but that sum has fluctuated over the years based on Tesla's stock price.

Following the court ruling, Tesla shareholders met in June and ratified Musk’s 2018 pay package for a second time, again by an overwhelming margin.

“Honoring the shoulder vote would affirm the strength of our corporate system,” David Ross, an attorney for Musk and the other individual defendants, told McCormick. “This was stockholder democracy working.”

Ross told the judge that the defendants were not challenging the factual findings or legal conclusions in her ruling, but simply asking that she vacate her order directing Tesla to rescind the pay package.

McCormick, however, seemed skeptical of the defense arguments, peppering attorneys with questions and noting that there is no precedent in Delaware law for allowing a post-trial shareholder vote to ratify adjudicated breaches of fiduciary duty by corporate directors.

“This has never been done before,” she said.

Defense attorneys argued that, while they could find no case that is exactly comparable, Delaware law has long recognized shareholder ratification as a cure to corporate governance errors, and has long acknowledged the “sovereignty” of shareholders as the ultimate owners of a corporation.

“I candidly don’t see how Delaware law can tell the owners of the company that they’re not entitled to make the decision they made,” said Rudolf Koch, an attorney for Tesla.

Donald Verrilli, a lawyer for an induvial stockholder who owns more than 19,000 Tesla shares, suggested that it would be wrong for the lone shareholder who filed the lawsuit to thwart the will of the majority of Tesla shareholders. At the time the lawsuit was filed, the plaintiff owned just nine shares of Tesla stock.

“The voice of the majority of shareholders should matter…. This lawsuit is not representing the interest of the shareholders," Verrilli said.

Thomas Grady, an attorney for a group of Florida objectors who own or manage almost 8 million Tesla shares with some $2 billion, argued that for McCormick to rule for the plaintiff, she has to “disenfranchise” all other Tesla shareholders.

Greg Varallo, an attorney for the plaintiff, urged McCormick not to give any credence to the June shareholder vote, saying it has no legal precedent in Delaware or anywhere else. There also is no reason for the court to reopen the trial record and admit new evidence, he said.

Under Delaware law, stockholders have no authority to overrule courts by trying to use a post-trial ratification vote as a “giant eraser,” Varallo argued.

“Ratification is not magic, and it never has been,” Varallo added. “This should end here and now.”

McCormick gave no indication on when she would rule. She also has yet to rule on a huge and unprecedented fee request by plaintiff attorneys, who contend that they are entitled to legal fees in the form of Tesla stock valued at more than $7 billion.

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

Elon Musk sees more resistance against his multibillion dollar pay package

just say no

A second shareholder advisory firm has come out against reinstating a pay package for Tesla CEO Elon Musk that was voided earlier this year by a Delaware judge.

ISS late Thursday joined Glass Lewis in recommending against the package, recently valued by the company at $44.9 billion but in January had a value of about $56 billion.

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.

ISS said in its recommendations on Tesla's proxy voting items that Musk's stock-based package was outsized when it was approved by shareholders in 2018, and it failed to accomplish board objectives voiced at that time.

The firm said that Tesla met the pay package’s performance objectives, and it recognized the company's substantial growth in size and profitability. But concerns about Musk spending too much time on other ventures that were raised in 2018 and since then have not been sufficiently addressed, ISS said.

“The grant, in many ways, failed to achieve the board’s other original objectives of focusing CEO Musk on the interests of Tesla shareholders, as opposed to other business endeavors, and aligning his financial interests more closely with those of Tesla stockholders,” ISS wrote.

Also, future concerns remain unaddressed, including a lack of clarity on Musk's future compensation and the potential for his pay to significantly dilute shareholder value, ISS wrote.

Musk plays big roles in his other ventures including SpaceX, Neuralink and the Boring Company. Last year he bought social media platform X and formed an artificial intelligence unit called xAI.

Last week the other prominent proxy advisory firm, Glass Lewis, also recommended against reinstating Musk's 2018 compensation package. The firm said the package would dilute shareholders' value by about 8.7%. The rationale for the package “does not in our view adequately consider dilution and its long-lasting effects on disinterested shareholders,” Glass Lewis wrote.

But in a proxy filing, Tesla said that Glass Lewis failed to consider that the 2018 award incentivized Musk to create over $735 billion in value for shareholders in the six years since it was approved.

“Tesla is one of the most successful enterprises of our time,” the filing said. “We have revolutionized the automotive market and become the first vertically integrated sustainable energy company."

Tesla is struggling with falling global sales, slowing electric vehicle demand, an aging model lineup and a stock price that has tumbled about 30% this year.

Tesla asked shareholders to restore Musk's pay package after it was rejected by a Delaware judge this year. At the time, it also asked to shift the company’s legal corporate home to Texas.

Glass Lewis recommended against moving the legal corporate home to Texas, but ISS said it favored the move.

California’s public employee retirement system, which holds a stake in Tesla, said it has not made a final decision on how it will vote on Musk’s pay. But CEO Marcie Frost told CNBC that as of Wednesday, the system would not vote in favor. CalPERS, which opposed the package in 2018, said it will discuss the matter with Tesla “in the coming days.”

In January, Delaware Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick ruled that Musk is not entitled to the landmark stock compensation that was to be granted over 10 years.

Ruling on a lawsuit from a shareholder, she voided the pay package, saying that Musk essentially controlled the board, making the process of enacting the compensation unfair to stakeholders. “Musk had extensive ties with the persons tasked with negotiating on Tesla’s behalf,” she wrote in her ruling.

In a letter to shareholders released in a regulatory filing last month, Tesla Chairwoman 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 the 2018 package. Shares at the time were up 571% since the pay package began.

“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, but the value of its shares has eroded quickly this year as EV sales soften.

The company said it delivered 386,810 vehicles from January through March, nearly 9% fewer than it sold in the same period last year. 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.

Starting 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.

In April, Tesla said that it was letting about 10% of its workers go, about 14,000 people.

Ad Placement 300x100

Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Property Showcase

Energy expert: What 2025 revealed about the evolution of Texas power

guest column

2025 marked a pivotal year for Texas’ energy ecosystem. Rising demand, accelerating renewable integration, tightening reserve margins and growing industrial load reshaped the way policymakers, utilities and the broader market think about reliability.

This wasn’t just another year of operational challenges; it was a clear signal that the state is entering an era where growth and innovation must move together in unison if Texas is going to keep pace.

What happened in 2025 is already influencing the decisions utilities, regulators and large energy consumers will make in 2026 and beyond. If Texas is going to remain the nation’s proving ground for large-scale energy innovation, this year made one thing clear: we need every tool working together and working smarter.

What changed: Grid, policy & the growth of renewables

This year, ERCOT recorded one of the steepest demand increases in its history. From January through September 2025, electricity consumption reached 372 terawatt-hours (TWh), a 5 percent increase over the previous year and a 23 percent jump since 2021. That growth officially positions ERCOT as the fastest-expanding large grid in the country.

To meet this rising load, Texas leaned heavily on clean energy. Solar, wind and battery storage served approximately 36 percent of ERCOT’s electricity needs over the first nine months of the year, a milestone that showcased how quickly Texas has diversified its generation mix. Utility-scale solar surged to 45 TWh, up 50 percent year-over-year, while wind generation reached 87 TWh, a 36 percent increase since 2021.

Battery storage also proved its value. What was once niche is now essential: storage helped shift mid-day excess solar to evening peaks, especially during a historic week in early spring when Texas hit new highs for simultaneous wind, solar and battery output.

Still, natural gas remained the backbone of reliability. Dispatchable thermal resources supplied more than 50 percent of ERCOT’s power 92 percent of the time in Q3 2025. That dual structure of fast-growing renewables backed by firm gas generation is now the defining characteristic of Texas’s energy identity.

But growth cuts both ways. Intermittent generation is up, yet demand is rising faster. Storage is scaling, but not quite at the rate required to fill the evening reliability gap. And while new clean-energy projects are coming online rapidly, the reality of rising population, data center growth, electrification and heavy industrial expansion continues to outpace the additions.

A recent forecast from the Texas Legislative Study Group projects demand could climb another 14 percent by mid-2026, tightening reserve margins unless meaningful additions in capacity, or smarter systemwide usage, arrive soon.

What 2025 meant for the energy ecosystem

The challenges of 2025 pushed Texas to rethink reliability as a shared responsibility between grid operators, generation companies, large load customers, policymakers and consumers. The year underscored several realities:

1. The grid is becoming increasingly weather-dependent. Solar thrives in summer; wind dominates in spring and winter. But extreme heat waves and cold snaps also push demand to unprecedented levels. Reliability now hinges on planning for volatility, not just averages.

2. Infrastructure is straining under rapid load growth. The grid handled multiple stress events in 2025, but it required decisive coordination and emerging technologies, such as storage methods, to do so.

3. Innovation is no longer optional. Advanced forecasting, grid-scale batteries, demand flexibility tools, and hybrid renewable-gas portfolios are now essential components of grid stability.

4. Data centers and industrial electrification are changing the game. Large flexible loads present both a challenge and an opportunity. With proper coordination, they can help stabilize the grid. Without it, they can exacerbate conditions of scarcity.

Texas can meet these challenges, but only with intentional leadership and strong public-private collaboration.

The system-level wins of 2025

Despite volatility, 2025 showcased meaningful progress:

Renewables proved their reliability role. Hitting 36 percent of ERCOT’s generation mix for three consecutive quarters demonstrates that wind, solar and batteries are no longer supplemental — they’re foundational.

Storage emerged as a real asset for reliability. Battery deployments doubled their discharge records in early 2025, showing the potential of short-duration storage during peak periods.

The dual model works when balanced wisely. Natural gas continues to provide firm reliability during low-renewable hours. When paired with renewable growth, Texas gains resilience without sacrificing affordability.

Energy literacy increased across the ecosystem. Communities, utilities and even industrial facilities are paying closer attention to how loads, pricing signals, weather and grid conditions interact—a necessary cultural shift in a fast-changing market.

Where Texas goes in 2026

Texas heads into 2026 with several unmistakable trends shaping the road ahead. Rate adjustments will continue as utilities like CenterPoint request cost recovery to strengthen infrastructure, modernize outdated equipment and add the capacity needed to handle record-breaking growth in load.

At the same time, weather-driven demand is expected to stay unpredictable. While summer peaks will almost certainly set new records, winter is quickly becoming the bigger wild card, especially as natural gas prices and heating demand increasingly drive both reliability planning and consumer stress.

Alongside these pressures, distributed energy is set for real expansion. Rooftop solar, community battery systems and hybrid generation-storage setups are no longer niche upgrades; they’re quickly becoming meaningful grid assets that help support reliability at scale.

And underlying all of this is a cultural shift toward energy literacy. The utilities, regulators, businesses, and institutions that understand load flexibility, pricing signals and efficiency strategies will be the ones best positioned to manage costs and strengthen the grid. In a market that’s evolving this fast, knowing how we use energy matters just as much as knowing how much.

The big picture: 2025 as a blueprint for a resilient future

If 2025 showed us anything, it’s that Texas can scale innovation at a pace few states can match. We saw record renewable output, historic storage milestones and strong thermal performance during strain events. The Texas grid endured significant stress but maintained operational integrity.

But it also showed that reliability isn’t a static achievement; it’s a moving target. As population growth, AI and industrial electrification and weather extremes intensify, Texas must evolve from a reactive posture to a proactive one.

The encouraging part is that Texas has the tools, the talent and the market structure to build one of the most resilient and future-ready power ecosystems in the world. The test ahead isn’t whether we can generate enough power; it’s whether we can coordinate systems, technologies and market behavior fast enough to meet the moment.

And in 2026, that coordination is precisely where the opportunity lies.

———

Sam Luna is director at BKV Energy, where he oversees brand and go-to-market strategy, customer experience, marketing execution, and more.

Blackstone clears major step in acquisition of TXNM Energy

power deal

A settlement has been reached in a regulatory dispute over Blackstone Infrastructure’s pending acquisition of TXNM Energy, the parent company of Texas-New Mexico Power Co. , which provides electricity in the Houston area. The settlement still must be approved by the Public Utility Commission of Texas.

Aside from Public Utility Commission staffers, participants in the settlement include TXNM Energy, Texas cities served by Texas-New Mexico Power, the Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel, Texas Industrial Energy Consumers, Walmart and the Texas Energy Association for Marketers.

Texas-New Mexico Power, based in the Dallas-Fort Worth suburb of Lewisville, supplies electricity to more than 280,000 homes and businesses in Texas. Ten cities are in Texas-New Mexico Power’s Houston-area service territory:

Alvin
Angleton
Brazoria
Dickinson
Friendswood
La Marque
League City
Sweeny
Texas City
West Columbia

Under the terms of the settlement, Texas-New Mexico Power must:

Provide a $45.5 million rate credit to customers over 48 months, once the deal closes
Maintain a seven-member board of directors, including three unaffiliated directors as well as the company’s president and CEO
Embrace “robust” financial safeguards
Keep its headquarters within the utility’s Texas service territory
Avoid involuntary layoffs, as well as reductions of wages or benefits related to for-cause terminations or performance issues

The settlement also calls for Texas-New Mexico Power to retain its $4.2 billion five-year capital spending plan through 2029. The plan will help Texas-New Mexico Power cope with rising demand; peak demand increased about 66 percent from 2020 to 2024.

Citing the capital spending plan in testimony submitted to the Public Utility Commission, Sebastian Sherman, senior managing director of Blackstone Infrastructure, said Texas-New Mexico Power “needs the right support to modernize infrastructure, to strengthen the grid against wildfire and other risks, and to meet surging electricity demand in Texas.”

Blackstone Infrastructure, which has more than $64 billion in assets under management, agreed in August to buy TXNM Energy in a $11.5 billion deal.

Neal Walker, president of Texas-New Mexico Power, says the deal will help his company maintain a reliable, resilient grid, and offer “the financial resources necessary to thrive in this rapidly changing energy environment and meet the unprecedented future growth anticipated across Texas.”

Constellation and Calpine's $26B clean energy megadeal clears final regulatory hurdle

big deal

Baltimore-based nuclear power company Constellation Energy Corp. received final regulatory clearance this month to acquire Houston-based Calpine Corp. for a net purchase price of $26.6 billion.

The acquisition has the potential to create America’s “largest clean energy provider,” the companies reported when the deal was first announced in January.

The Department of Justice approved the acquisition contingent on Calpine divesting several assets, including one in the Houston area.

The company agreed to divest the Jack Fusco Energy Center natural gas-fired combined cycle facility in Richmond, Texas; four generating assets in the Mid-Atlantic region; and other natural gas plants in Pennsylvania and Corpus Christi, Texas.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Public Utility Commission of Texas and the New York Public Service Commission previously approved the deal. The companies can move toward closing the acquisition once the court finalizes the stipulation and order.

"We are very pleased to reach a settlement that allows us to bring together two magnificent companies to create a new Constellation with unprecedented scale, talent and capability to better serve our customers and communities while building the foundation for America’s next great era of growth and innovation," Joe Dominguez, president and CEO of Constellation, said in a news release. "We thank the Department for its professionalism and tireless work reviewing this transaction through these many months. It’s now time for us to complete the transaction, welcome our new colleagues from Calpine, and together begin our journey to light the way to a brilliant tomorrow for all."

Andrew Novotny, CEO of Calpine, will continue to lead the Calpine business and Constellation's fleet of natural gas, hydro, solar and wind generation, according to the company. He will report to Dominguez and also serve as senior executive vice president of Constellation Power Operations.

Constellation is considered one of the top clean energy producers in the U.S. Earlier this month, the company was approved to receive a $1 billion loan from the Department of Energy's Energy Dominance Financing Program to restart its 835-megawatt nuclear reactor in Pennsylvania known as Crane Clean Energy Center.

"Work to restart the reactor comes at a time of unprecedented electric demand growth from electrification and the new data centers needed to support a growing digital economy and to help America win the AI race," a news release from the company reads. "Crane will support grid stability by delivering reliable, around-the-clock electric supply."

View All Listings

ENERGYCAPITALHTX EMAILS ARE AWESOME