ÆCIII
Well-known member
IMO forward looking statements are something that Tesla and the board had every right to make or withhold, and interpret with their own emphasis, regardless of how predictions might turn out, as long as the terms of the compensation package were met in the stated timeline.https://www.legaldive.com/news/tesla-taking-novel-approach-56b-musk-pay-DGCL-Talley-Lipton-chancery-court-shareholder-suit/713745/#:~:text=“Earlier this year, a Delaware,letter in the proxy statement.
The court found the board didn't do their due diligence to detail the conflicts of interest on the board. Even though they put it to a general vote, the board's conflict made the basis for the vote suspect.
The court also found that the board failed to disclose the forward looking statements that their creditors saw, which showed that these benchmarks were more likely than not to be achieved. They were not stretch goals.
And the solution is... Release that information and vote again. It's not even a high cost.
Using courts without juries is how the vast majority of rulings are made, as it's much quicker and cheaper and usually, fairly even-handed. Even with a jury, there's still only one judge in the court.
-Crissa
There are still more layers of course, and while I may not agree with their interpretations, thank you for summarizing them for us and providing a link - appreciated.
- ÆCIII