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.

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.

“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

Greentown names 5 climatech startups to manufacturing accelerator

Catalyst Cohort

Greentown Labs has named five climatech startups to its Go Make 2026 cohort, including one from Houston.

Greentown Go Make 2026 is in partnership with Shell Catalysts & Technologies and Technip Energies. Startups will be able to collaborate with leadership from Shell and Technip and have opportunities to work directly with their process engineering teams and develop potential partnerships, pilots and demonstrations, according to Greentown.

This year's manufacturing cohort focuses specifically on process technology and catalytic innovations, which, according to Greentown, have the potential to be a "critical enabler of the global energy transition." Greentown shares that 90 percent of chemical processes depend on catalysis, but traditional methods rely on fossil fuels and consume significant amounts of energy.

“Catalysis underpins the majority of industrial chemical processes, which together account for a significant share of global emissions, making it a critical lever for reducing carbon intensity while improving performance,” Georgina Campbell Flatter, CEO of Greentown, said in a news release. “Greentown Go Make 2026 is designed to close the gap between breakthrough innovation and industrial deployment. By connecting startups with Shell and Technip Energies’ technical expertise and global scale, we’re helping accelerate solutions that improve efficiency and drive industrial decarbonization.”

The five Greentown Go Make 2026 companies include:

  • Houston-based Biosimo, which makes scalable biochemicals from ethanol
  • Missouri-based Catalyxx, which transforms bioethanol into drop-in, cost-competitive, carbon-negative chemicals
  • Sydney, Australia-based HydGene Renewables, which produces low-carbon hydrogen and industrial chemicals from waste biomass
  • Switzerland-based TreaTech, which turns waste into renewable gas, water and minerals through catalytic hydrothermal gasification
  • California-based Unifuel, which has developed a chemical technology platform to make sustainable aviation fuel, renewable gasoline and other renewable chemicals

The cohort will be celebrated at a kickoff event in Houston at The Ion on June 9.

In addition to Greentown Go Make, Greentown also runs its Go Move (transportation), Go Energize (energy and electricity), Go Build (buildings), and Go Grow (food and agriculture) cohort-based programs. The climatech incubator announced its Go Build 2026 cohort in March. Read more here.

Houston developer launches AI-powered water platform to boost efficiency

eyes on AI

Houston real estate company McCord Development has launched an artificial-Intelligence-run water management platform, MizuWatch.

MizuWatch aims to help operators, districts, and municipalities detect leaks faster, reduce water loss and improve efficiency, according to the company. MizuWatch pulls data from supply sources, smart meters, historical usage and maintenance records, and combines them into a single platform. The AI system also uses visual mapping and digital twin technology to deliver near-real-time system insights.

“MizuWatch brings the right data together daily, so teams can see what’s happening now, intervene earlier and focus their resources where they have the greatest impact,” Jerzy Wielgus, chief product officer for MizuWatch, said in a news release.

MizuWatch was built to “scale across geographies and system sizes to help assist with water scarcity, aging infrastructure, and operational complexity,” according to the company. It was developed at Houston’s Generation Park, McCord’s 4,300-acre master planned commercial district. McCord was able to pilot the platform onsite to help manage its complex, real-world water systems at scale.

“Resilient infrastructure is a key factor for the companies choosing Generation Park,” Ryan McCord, CEO of McCord Development and Founder & CEO of MizuWatch, added in the release. “We made the decision to deploy smart meters, but no one knew how to use the data they generate. This is an opportunity across all infrastructure where sensors are deployed. What started as an internal solution has become a platform we believe can help stakeholders everywhere be more efficient in their operations, investment, and compliance.”

Last fall, Eli Lilly and Co. selected Generation Park for its $6.5 billion manufacturing plant. More than 300 locations in the U.S. competed for the factory. Bristol Myers Squibb Co., another pharmaceutical giant, also announced it is considering Generation Park for a new manufacturing hub earlier this month.

Oil giant BP ousts new chairman over serious conduct concerns

Sudden Exit

BP has ousted its chairman over what it called serious concerns related to “important governance standards, oversight and conduct.”

The departure was abrupt and unexpected, with Albert Manifold having been appointed to the position late last year.

“Albert has helped bring a welcome focus and pace to BP’s transformation," Amanda Blanc, senior independent director, said in a statement Tuesday, May 26. "However, the board has been surprised and disappointed to learn of governance oversight and conduct issues it deems unacceptable and has taken decisive action.”

BP's board named Ian Tyler as interim chair, effective immediately.

BP, based in London and with North American headquarters in Houston, is a “supermajor,” one of the five largest oil production and exploration companies in the world when measured by revenue and profit.

Manifold, who had been the top executive at Dublin-based global building materials company CRH for 10 years, became the chair at BP in October. BP was looking for someone to revamp the oil giant and went with an industry outsider in Manifold, who had made major strategic changes at CRH.

After a new focus on renewable energy at BP in 2020, by 2025 the company was seeking a return to its roots. BP's hard reset was criticized by environmentalists, as well as some shareholders.

CEO Murray Auchincloss said last year that optimism over opportunities in renewable energy was misplaced, with the company moving “too far and too fast.”

Changes in leadership at BP in recent years has been tumultuous.

CEO Bernard Looney resigned in late 2023 after BP determined that he had misled the company over his past relationships with colleagues.

Auchincloss stepped down in December, and the company named Meg O'Neill as his successor.

Manifold’s was challenged almost immediately when shareholders defeated company resolutions this spring that would have allowed BP to reduce climate reporting requirements and move its annual meetings fully online. Some 18% of shareholders voted against Manifold’s election as chairman, a high level of opposition for an appointment that is generally rubber stamped by investors.

Legal & General, one of Britain’s largest insurers and investment companies, said at the time that Manifold was responsible for resolutions that would have had “a negative impact on shareholders’ insight into how the company is addressing financially material long-term risks, and seizing long-term value creation opportunities, associated with the energy transition,” the Times of London reported on April 23.

Glass Lewis, an influential shareholder advisor, urged investors to vote against Manifold’s election. It held that BP took “unprecedented action” by refusing to consider a resolution from a group of climate activists and pension funds hoping to force the board to create an alternative strategy should demand for fossil fuels decline, the Times reported.

Like other big oil companies, BP has struggled with falling demand in recent years.

BP’s 2025 earnings fell 16% from a year earlier to $7.49 billion as the price of Brent crude, a benchmark for international oil prices, dropped 16.9%. The company’s preferred measure of earnings is underlying replacement cost profit, which adjusts for one-time items and fluctuations in the market value of inventories. Net income plunged 86% to $55 million.

Last year there were media reports that British oil giant Shell was in talks to buy rival BP. Shell denied the reports at the time.

The search for a new chair is underway, BP said Tuesday. Shares of BP Plc slid nearly 5% in midday trading on the NYSE.