Seems like shareholders should be voting him out.
this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2024
239 points (92.5% liked)
Technology
60106 readers
2150 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This is the start.
Fucking billions! ONE billion would be enough to never have to work again if you live lavishly! And this irresponsible, pathetic narcissist is having a tantrum because number won’t go up. I actually want to be alone in a room with him tied to a wall and a set of supplies that would make the CIA go pale. Same with every other sociopathic manchild that’s killing us all because ”Durr, number go up,”
Fucking billions! ONE billion would be enough to never have to work again if you live lavishly!
You could put it in a box and never need to work again. Although it would have to be a very big box. That's still 10 million $100 bills.
In a bank, or other investment vehicle, with an interest rate of 0.46%, it earns $4.6M a year. With one of the really good rates in that article (4.88%), $48.8M.
Most people's wages don't go anywhere near that high, even in America.
There's arguments to be made in how it's assets, and therefore can't be converted to money, nor be accurately represented as money all at once, but that's still a mind-boggling amount.
Banks will gladly take those shares as security against a $100M loan, which will easily pay itself off by the rising value of the shares.
1 billion is enough for a thousand people to never have to work again
Not really
Depends on cost of living. $40k/year gets you pretty far in places with low CoL without kids.
Can't believe I respected that guy for so long.
It's really hard for me to feel sorry for any of the parties involved so the ethics feel weird.
I guess the law firm saved the shareholders from being fleeced and they want their cut. It's obscene, but still a small fraction of what Elon would've walked off with.
You’re touching on the difference between ethics and morals. Perfectly ethical, morally questionable.
It's hilarious that the amount is only so obscene because Musk tried to siphon such an obscene amount of Tesla stock into his pockets.
According to the Journal, plaintiff attorneys usually get one-third of a verdict or settlement amount.
This isn't a an amount awarded in a verdict though, is it?
Plaintiff's Counsel have not been paid for their work, nor have any of their costs or expenses been reimbursed, and litigating this Action required the allocation of a substantial amount of Plaintiff's Counsel's time and resources over six years, including considerable out-of-pocket expenses,
So that's roughly 100 lawyers working full time for 6 years at $5k per hour. Seems legit.
In any case this is hilarious and exactly the kind of thing Elon would try.
This isn't a an amount awarded in a verdict though, is it?
It's the amount that was at stake and changed hands as a result of the case. Having it be the amount their fee was based on is pretty normal.
As long as it upsets Musk they can have 11%, hell they worked so hard give 'em 20%
Better: shareholders will notice that their latest dividend could have been larger.
It is, in the sense that Tesla can now recover that amount from Musk. This is technically a benefit to Tesla and its shareholders, even though the Tesla board were the ones who approved the package in the first place.
Roughly speaking, from a legal point of view, the court is saying that Musk embezzled - or improperly enriched himself to the tune of - $55bn from Tesla by using his close ties with board members, including immediate family. Because this is a civil case, that $55bn recovered is essentially damages, flowing from Musk to Tesla, and the standard for civil cases is that the lawyers can recover a percentage of the damages as their fee (the lawyers here take pains to point out that the amount they're asking for is actually substantially lower than what is considered the standard for these sorts of cases. But because this is, in effect, the largest judgement ever levied against someone in a civil case, the actual dollar value of the lawyer's requested fee is eye popping).
Out of curiosity, if there was an article about how badly Tusk used bathrooms at tesla HQ, would it be posted in c/technology too ?
Out of curiosity, what article exactly?
I'm not familiar with posting rules, but would think it's not technology related if the bathroom installations do not include fancy new bathroom technology.
Only if the stalls start to rust
Tusk what? Use a bathroom badly??? That's a pretty weird analogy.
This story is somewhat tech related, in that significant financials of a tech company influence the company as a whole, in other situations it may influence the industry.
This is not directly tech as in how to build your own particle accelerator, but the terms do say tech related. Which gives some leeway.
Elon Musk may be the most influential person in the tech industry, so that makes it somewhat tech related too.
If this is enough is up to moderators to decide.
Oh no how terrible. Anyway..
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Lawyers for a Tesla shareholder successfully argued in a Delaware court that Elon Musk doesn't deserve a $55-billion compensation package for his work at the EV company.
The attorneys argued in a Friday court filing that the fee for their litigation work amounts to about 11% of the pay package.
Chancellor Kathleen McCormick of the Delaware Chancery Court now has to decide how much of the compensation package can go to attorneys' fees.
"Plaintiff's Counsel have not been paid for their work, nor have any of their costs or expenses been reimbursed, and litigating this Action required the allocation of a substantial amount of Plaintiff's Counsel's time and resources over six years, including considerable out-of-pocket expenses," the attorneys wrote.
Tornetta's lawyers, including lead attorney Greg Varallo of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman, wrote in the Friday court filing that his team is prepared to "eat our cooking."
"The size of the requested award is great because the value of the benefit to Tesla that plaintiff's counsel achieved was massive."
The original article contains 450 words, the summary contains 169 words. Saved 62%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!