[Taek]

Yes I did, and I don't see sound justification for the ruling. The judge says the compensation was biased, rather than providing justification for establishing that there was too much compensation.

The judge provided a sensational quote: "Is the richest man on Earth overpaid?" - completely ignoring any business value that he has brought to Tesla, a key element in determining whether a compensation package is responsible from a fiduciary standpoint.

Nothing in the article convinces me that the ruling is just and that the judge was acting in the fiduciary interests of Tesla shareholders.

[s1artibartfast]

The argument boiled down to the idea that Elon already stood to make 100B by hitting the milestones, so it's more Milestone based incentives had no impact.

[ModernMech]

> completely ignoring any business value that he has brought to Tesla

According to the ruling, Musk’s lawyers failed to argue causality during trial. The judge can’t credit Musk for what Musk himself doesn’t argue.

[aw1621107]

It's not that they failed to argue causality, but they did not prove it. From II.C.b.vii (The Hindsight Defense):

> Defendants finally argue from hindsight. They claim the Grant was fair because it worked: “Tesla thrived because of the 2018 Plan.” With this argument, Defendants ask the court to infer a direct causal relationship between the Grant and Tesla’s subsequent performance. But Defendants failed to prove that Musk’s less- than-full time efforts for Tesla were solely or directly responsible for Tesla’s recent growth, or that the Grant was solely or directly responsible for Musk’s efforts. This last argument is empty rhetoric, not evidence of fair price.

[ModernMech]

The judge characterized it as “made no effort” so it’s a little of both.