Elon Musk’s $56 billion salary plan was accepted by Tesla shareholders, the electric car manufacturer announced on Thursday. This is a significant endorsement of Musk’s leadership and a motivator for him to maintain his attention on his primary source of income.
The approval shows how well-liked Musk is by Tesla’s regular investors, many of whom are outspoken admirers of the erratic entrepreneur. Despite resistance from certain significant institutional investors and proxy firms, the proposal was approved.
At the Austin, Texas, annual shareholder meeting, Musk characterized himself as pathologically optimistic when addressing the stage. To cheers, Musk remarked, “If I wasn’t optimistic, this wouldn’t exist, this factory wouldn’t exist.” “But in the end, I succeed.
That’s what matters most.”
He had hinted late on Wednesday that there was a lot of support for the measures.
However, the decision does not end the Delaware court dispute regarding the pay package, which some legal experts believe might go on for months. In January, the judge ruled that the pay package was illegal, calling it “unfathomable.” In addition, Musk might be subject to new litigation regarding the package—the biggest in US company history. This package was approved by shareholders in 2018.
Boston College Law School professor Brian Quinn stated, “This is not over.” According to him, the Delaware judge will carefully examine the vote and demand that Tesla demonstrate that Musk did not force or unfairly influence the process.
Criticizing the board of Tesla for being “beholden” to him, the judge stated that the proposal was put up by a conflicted board that had tight financial and personal ties to the company’s top executive.
Also approved by shareholders on Thursday was a plan to relocate the company’s legal headquarters from Delaware to Texas. In addition, they supported additional recommendations, including the re-election of James Murdoch, the son of media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, and his brother Kimbal Musk as board members.
Despite board opposition, shareholders did raise the level of investor control by adopting recommendations to shorten board terms to one year and reduce voting criteria for proposals to a simple majority.
