> Everything I saw said it was approved by a large majority, and viewed as extremely ambitious goals at the time.
Both of these are addressed in the ruling [0]. The shareholder approval was effectively void due to material omissions, and it seems there's some dispute on how ambitious the goals actually were.
Not only that, but the judge found that the Board members basically had serious conflicts of interest because of their personal relationships with Musk, meaning that they were not independent representatives of shareholder interests in any meaningful sense.
Both of these are addressed in the ruling [0]. The shareholder approval was effectively void due to material omissions, and it seems there's some dispute on how ambitious the goals actually were.
[0]: https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=359340