{"id":130224,"date":"2022-11-16T21:27:42","date_gmt":"2022-11-16T21:27:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fin2me.com\/?p=130224"},"modified":"2022-11-16T21:27:42","modified_gmt":"2022-11-16T21:27:42","slug":"musk-says-he-made-some-tesla-decisions-without-board-nod-defends-56-billion-pay","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fin2me.com\/business\/musk-says-he-made-some-tesla-decisions-without-board-nod-defends-56-billion-pay\/","title":{"rendered":"Musk says he made some Tesla decisions without board nod, defends $56 billion pay"},"content":{"rendered":"
WILMINGTON, Del (Reuters) -Elon Musk said in court on Wednesday that he made some Tesla Inc decisions without the approval of the company\u2019s directors, as he defended his $56 billion pay package against claims that he dictated its terms to a compliant board.<\/p> Tesla shareholder Richard Tornetta sued Musk and the board in 2018 and hopes to prove that Musk used his dominance over Tesla\u2019s board to obtain an outsized compensation package that did not require him to work at the electric car maker full-time.<\/p>\n Questioned by Tornetta\u2019s lawyer, Greg Varallo, Musk rejected claims that his pay package goals were easy to achieve.<\/p>\n \u201cThe amount of pain, no words can express,\u201d Musk said in a near-whisper, describing the effort required to get the company from brink of failure in 2017 to explosive growth. \u201cIt\u2019s pain I would not wish to inflict upon anyone.\u201d<\/p>\n Varallo repeatedly sought to portray Tesla as a company under the grip of Musk, the world\u2019s richest person, and tried to show that Musk bypassed Tesla\u2019s board on several occasions.<\/p>\n For example, Musk said he made a unilateral call on ending Tesla\u2019s acceptance of Bitcoin cryptocurrency and acknowledged that the board was not informed before he told analysts in October that Tesla\u2019s board was considering buying back up to $10 billion of stock.<\/p>\n But the testimony did not definitely prove who developed Musk\u2019s 2018 pay package or establish whether it was a product of his demands rather than negotiations with the board.<\/p>\n The five-day trial comes as Musk is struggling to oversee a chaotic overhaul of Twitter Inc, which he was forced to buy for $44 billion in a separate legal battle before the same judge, Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick, after trying to back out of that deal.<\/p>\n Musk tweeted this week that he was remaining at Twitter\u2019s San Francisco headquarters around the clock until he fixed that company\u2019s problems, and said on Wednesday he had come to Delaware on an overnight flight from the social media company.<\/p> Musk said his focus on restructuring Twitter would soon wind down and he would find someone else to lead it. He was dismissive of the argument that his pay deal should have obligated him to spend a set number of hours at Tesla.<\/p>\n \u201cI pretty much work all the time,\u201d he said. \u201cI don\u2019t know what a punch clock would achieve.\u201d<\/p>\n While Musk has a history of combative testimony, calling lawyers \u201creprehensible\u201d or \u201ca bad human being,\u201d he was relatively restrained in Wednesday\u2019s proceedings, though at times expressed frustration with Tornetta\u2019s attorney.<\/p>\n At one point, Musk told the plaintiff lawyer, \u201cyour question is a complex question that is commonly used to mislead people.\u201d<\/p>\n Musk acknowledged that he was not a lawyer but added, \u201cwhen you\u2019re in enough lawsuits you pick up a few things.\u201d<\/p>\n A \u2018PRODUCT GENIUS\u2019<\/p>\n Tornetta has asked the court to rescind the 2018 package, which his attorney said was $20 billion larger than the annual gross domestic product of the state of Delaware.<\/p>\n The legal team for Musk and the Tesla directors have cast the pay package as a set of audacious goals that worked by driving 10-fold growth in Tesla\u2019s stock value, to more than $600 billion from around $50 billion.<\/p>\n They have argued the plan was developed by independent board members, advised by outside professionals and with input from large shareholders.<\/p>\n Tornetta\u2019s attorney tried to show Musk was involved from the start. An email from May 2017 appeared to establish that Musk was pushing for the pay plan months before the board negotiated it with him.<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019m planning something really crazy, but also high risk,\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n Antonio Gracias, a venture capital investor and longtime friend of Musk who was also a Tesla board member from 2007 to 2021, took the stand after Musk testified.<\/p>\n Gracias said he was prepared to push back on Musk if necessary. \u201cI don\u2019t pull punches with any of my CEOs,\u201d he told the court.<\/p>\n The disputed Tesla package allows Musk to buy 1% of Tesla\u2019s stock at a deep discount each time escalating performance and financial targets are met. Otherwise, Musk gets nothing.<\/p>\n Tesla has hit 11 of the 12 targets, according to court papers.<\/p>\n Shareholders generally cannot challenge executive compensation because courts typically defer to the judgment of directors. The Musk case survived a motion to dismiss because it was determined he might be considered a controlling shareholder, which means stricter rules apply.<\/p>\n Gracias described Musk as essential to the company\u2019s success in his testimony, calling him \u201cextraordinary\u201d and a \u201cproduct genius.\u201d<\/p>\n