I'd like to hear what makes you think so, when a judge looked at the facts, heard arguments from both sides, and decided otherwise. Do you have additional facts they did not, or are you basing this off your own study of jurisprudence? Or is it just kind of a knee jerk reaction based on reading a headline and having feelings about it, or is it some fourth possibility I haven't considered?

Because I, along other shareholders, voted for the plan, which you can find here:

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000119312518...

The reasons for voiding it are absurd. He did the almost impossible and met all milestones of the plan and brought TREMENDOUS value to all the shareholders.

Had he not done it, his shares would not be worth that much.

Does anyone truly deserve $50Bn compensation for anything?

Yes-- if he can generate much more than $50 billion in value for Tesla shareholders, and they give him $50 billion in compensation, that's a fair trade in my book.

Nobody in the history of work has ever earned 50 billion dollars. It's winnings. That's all.

That wholly depends on your definition of the term 'earned'. If you compare it to the way most people look at it - earning money through hard work against an hourly rate - it does not make any sense at all. If you define it in terms of gains - monetary or otherwise - created through the actions of a person things look different and there are many people who would have 'earned' this amount and more. In practice hardly anyone who 'earns' so much actually is awarded the amount they 'earn' but Musk took a gamble which would normally have paid off like many be-suited-and-tied types (and quite a few be-shirted-and-hoodied in more recent years) have taken such gambles before him have done. As to why Musk is singled out here where others like Gates, Bezos and Zuckerberg were left alone does raise a number of questions related to the impartiality of the legal system.

Nobody has ever “earned” any money. They trade services and goods for it.

That's beyond ridiculous. What true value has he generated? Also if the stock tanks then shouldn't investors have a right to strip some of that compensation? 50 billion to millions of investors and 50 million to one guy is hardly a fair trade. Not to mention how many times he's promised to deliver new features or products and comes up terribly short.

Tesla market cap is $600B. The shareholders made a lot of money. That was the deal.

He was paid to be CEO and drive the company towards particular goals. The entire point of leadership is to make sure those happen, not to do them yourself.

You can claim the amount should be lower, but then your argument is with the shareholders who came up with the proposal and approved it.

That’s the whole point of the lawsuit. The shareholders allege Musk came up with the proposal, controlled the process, then lied about it to shareholders. The judge found in their favor after a trial.

So why does Musk deserve this again? Because he says so?

No, that’s not what they claimed. The judge found that the board was to biased in favor of Musk. Not that he came up with anything.

The judge found that "At least as to this transaction, Musk controlled Tesla".

Meaning that Musk directed the creation of the compensation package, not that the compensation committee were merely biased. The analysis of this is on pages 103-146 of the ruling.

I want to point out that, you are arguing with a guy who defends a person who spends more time shitposting on twitter then running a company that he really deserves $50bn bonus.

You can spend your time better than this ;)

lol what are you taking about, arguing on the internet is the highest calling! :P

at least argue with someone who might be reasoned with, like flat eathers or underground resistance of reptilian overloads

The stock doesn't pay dividends. Why not pay dividends and let investors purchase more stock with the proceeds. Smells like speculation and an invitation to getting sued and prosecuted.

Yes. All by himself. So many all nighters building cars, alone. “Just one more car, so I can, alone, provide value.”

The board believed (quite reasonably) that Elon had the power to determine the trajectory of the stock over the next 5 years, and they acted on that belief by tying his compensation to particular stock goals. The board then put that compensation plan to a shareholder vote, and the shareholders approved it.

The stock hit those goals, and Elon got paid.

Then one guy with 9 shares said it's not fair, and got a judge to agree.

I love it, the legal system really is a great equalizer sometimes.

The judge said "no":

"A Delaware judge on Tuesday voided the $56 billion pay package of Tesla CEO Elon Musk, ruling that the company's board of directors failed to prove "that the compensation plan was fair" or show much evidence that they had even negotiated with him".

And , to be objective :

"Tesla ended Q4 2023 with a net income of $7.9 billion and the full year with $15 billion in profits" , that money is more 3 years of profit, meaning that the company , after that compensation, must wait almost 4 years, if the trend remains that one, to generate profit !

So who can say the judge was unfair ???

Other possible repercussion, Tesla lack of funds for R&D in a sector where the competitors became very aggressive.

He's not spending $50B on Lambo's and Gucci bags. If he uses it to start a new company that employs thousands of people then he deserves it.

- But - he used the money to buy a company , Twitter, that was able to create profit, do lot of questionable choices killing any profit and, worst, firing thousands of employees, people with families, I want to remember. So, at the end, better if he did spend that money in Lambos and Guccis !

You don't know what you're talking about. If he didn't fire those employees there would be no Twitter and 100% of the jobs would be gone. Twitter was losing money and nearly bankrupt. It was not a profitable company when he bought it. After learning about the actual state of the company he tried to exit the deal but was sued by Twitter and legally forced to complete the deal. He has since turned it into a profitable company.

https://qz.com/elon-musk-is-suing-the-law-firm-that-helped-f...

I don't think so and , anyway, why are you using the past ? Twitter IS losing money and IS nearly backrupt, not being able to sell , you know, ads, that in a company relying for 75% of its income on ads it's a big problem:

"X generated $4.4 billion revenue in 2022, a 11% decrease on 2021 figures. Revenue is expected to be worse in 2023 due to a loss of advertising revenue"

In fact, now is 1.5 billion verified, 2.1 estimated with a negative trend:

https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-ad-revenue-musks-x-dec... https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/stop-comparing-x...

We have half revenue, even if you improved the efficiency of 100%, you have no improvement. Besides there are the interest he have to pay to banks lent him money.

So, "He has since turned it into a profitable company" , it's not true, it's the opposite, demonstrated black on white in the financial documents. Everything else is a delusional dream of Musk's troll army.

The people he fired was the same people help the platform to keep away the scum of the web outside, reason why the ads are declining. You know, you don't want nazis, white suprematist, antisemitic, hamas, near the new shoes model you are trying to advertise.

P.S. Anyway why this article is flagged? The source is a news article for a reputable source and the title is correct. Other demonstration that when you dare commit blasphemy against the Cult of Musk , you have to face an overdose of trolling.

> it's not true, it's the opposite, demonstrated black on white in the financial documents

Which financial documents? Twitter is a private company now. How did you get access to their private financial statements?

Also, revenue != profit, and those numbers are estimated, as explained in the articles that you linked to. Those sources do not have access to the financial statements.

Net income for Twitter before it went private was -$221 million. That's a $221 million loss in 2021 before Musk bought it (public information, since it was a public company). 80% of the employees were fired and the system is still running. Why should those people have stayed employed and continued to lose $200M+ per year? Do you believe a company can continue to pay staff if it has no money?

> P.S. Anyway why this article is flagged?

It's a dupe. Further discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39196390

> That's a $221 million loss in 2021

That was down to a one-off $800M lawsuit settlement. They technically made $580M profit in 2021.

"Technically" that is a $221M loss in 2021.

In 2020 they lost $1.1 billion.

2018 and 2019 were the only profitable years in the 10 years prior to 2022 [0].

From 2018 to 2021 they nearly doubled the number of employees from 3920 to 7500 [1]. Jack Dorsey regretted it and apologized for over-hiring [2].

[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/274563/annual-net-income...

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/272140/employees-of-twit...

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/05/twitter-e...