[butter999]

Their reputation is being friendly to shareholders.

Shareholders brought a suit alleging Musk's pay package was inappropriate. It came out in the lawsuit that the people charged with negotiating with Musk were actually taking direction from him.

However you feel about that, I think it's easy to acknowledge that if the people negotiating on your behalf were being instructed by the counterparty, you probably didn't get the best deal you could. The court's decision was reasonable and probably would've been similar in any jurisdiction.

This exodus appears to me to be part petty feud and part cargo cult.

[bradley13]

Ad I understand it, after the initial ruling, the shareholders voted and passed the package again. The judge still disallowed it.

She appears to be ruling based on ideology instead of law.

[dkjaudyeqooe]

You're obviously a great legal scholar. Did you read the ruling?

The "passed the package again" tried to resurrect the original incentive payments, retroactively. That was disallowed.

[JumpCrisscross]

Literally the comment below you.

[richwater]

> Their reputation is being friendly to shareholders.

And then the shareholders voted and it passed...?

[JumpCrisscross]

> then the shareholders voted and it passed...?

Not the same shareholders. If the new vote had been on a new package, that would have been unambiguous.

The bottom line is Musk and Mark don’t want Boards. That’s honestly fine if everyone agrees ex ante those are the rules they’re playing by. Delaware law requires independent Boards. Sort of like a quorum requirement, the company can’t do certain things if it’s deficient in this respect. Texas law apparently doesn’t.