Elon Musk Tesla Earnings: Musk’s $55 billion compensation package invalidated, jeopardizing the largest fortune in the world.

Elon Musk Tesla Earnings: A Delaware judge has invalidated Elon Musk’s $55 billion compensation package at Tesla Inc. following a shareholder’s objection, deeming it excessive. This ruling could significantly impact Musk’s wealth and raise concerns about the future of his companies.

If the ruling is upheld on appeal, it would mean that Tesla’s board will need to create a new proposal for executive compensation. This decision marks a significant loss for the electric-car maker’s co-founder, as it is his first major defeat in court.

Despite being granted the largest executive compensation plan in history over five years ago, Musk refrained from exercising his options due to the ongoing legal challenge in Delaware Chancery Court. Following the announcement of the ruling, Tesla’s share price experienced a decline of approximately 3% in after-hours trading.

Musk has persistently urged Tesla’s board to organize another substantial stock award for him, even after he sold a significant portion of his shares in the company to acquire Twitter. The billionaire has emphasized the necessity of a larger stake in Tesla to retain control of the electric-car manufacturer and further expand into artificial intelligence.

The recent ruling has cast uncertainty over the future of Musk’s wealth. Valued at approximately $51.1 billion, the options represented one of his most valuable assets. Without them, his net worth would decrease to $154.3 billion, positioning him as the third-richest individual globally. This comes after Musk held the top spot for the majority of the past couple of years, as reported by the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

Evan Chesler, the attorney representing Musk in New York, did not promptly reply to an email and phone call requesting a comment on the decision made late Tuesday.

After a trial that concluded over a year ago, Chief Judge Kathaleen St. J. McCormick of the Delaware Chancery Court ruled in favor of an investor who raised concerns about Tesla directors’ inadequate disclosure regarding the 2018 executive compensation package and the performance benchmarks expected from Musk. Additionally, she discovered conflicts of interest that tainted the board’s evaluation of the payment scheme.

According to a 200-page ruling, Musk initiated a self-driving procedure, adjusting the speed and direction as he deemed appropriate. However, the process ultimately resulted in an unjust price. As a result, the plaintiff is now seeking a recall through this legal action.

At the age of 52, Musk has secured the top position on Bloomberg’s wealth list due to his ownership in Tesla, the most valuable automotive company globally. Although the stock options from his compensation plan have gradually vested over the past few years upon achieving performance targets, Musk has not yet exercised any of these options, as indicated by regulatory filings.

The billionaire wasted no time in responding to the verdict regarding his social media platform X, previously recognized as Twitter. He suggested, “If you prioritize shareholders having the final say, consider establishing your company in Nevada or Texas.”

Musk, renowned for defying conventional corporate practices, has typically emerged victorious in legal disputes, such as a lawsuit filed by shareholders concerning his acquisition of SolarCity, a renewable-power provider.

During the compensation lawsuit, attorneys representing Richard Tornetta, a Tesla shareholder, contended that the board members did not demonstrate impartiality when formulating the remuneration package for the CEO. They further alleged that the board allowed the CEO to manipulate the specifics of his pay plan in an inappropriate manner.

According to Tornetta’s lawyers, Musk provided the “framework and financial terms, which remained fundamentally unchanged” during the board’s approval process. In her ruling, McCormick highlighted that Musk himself admitted to essentially “negotiating against myself” during the discussions about his compensation.

“The most notable absence in this process is the lack of any evidence of adversarial negotiations between the board and Musk regarding the magnitude of the grant,” the judge stated. The decision was partially delayed due to the judge’s back surgery last year.

Musk’s defense failed to provide a justification for the need of the “unprecedented compensation plan” to motivate the CEO towards achieving “transformative growth.” The judge pointed out that Musk had no intention of leaving Tesla and his ownership stake was already enough motivation for him to remain focused on growth.

The judge criticized the board for being caught up in the allure of the “all upside” rhetoric or being influenced by Musk’s superstar status, without questioning whether the $55.8 billion plan was truly necessary for Tesla to retain Musk and achieve its objectives.

During a recent earnings call, Musk persistently pursued a larger stake in Tesla, emphasizing that the issue was more about his control over the company rather than monetary gain.

“I don’t want to control it, but if I have so little influence at the company at this stage, I could be voted out by some random shareholder advisory firm,” he said.

Tesla’s CEO called out proxy advisers Glass Lewis and Institutional Shareholder Services — he jokingly referred to the latter as the extremist group ISIS — and claimed they were infiltrated by “activists” with “strange ideas.”

Read More: Musk Says He Needs Bigger Tesla Stake to Avoid Being Ousted

Greg Varallo, one of Tornetta’s lawyers, hailed the undoing of “the absurdly outsized pay package for Musk.” He added in an email that the decision wipes out the share-dilution effect Tesla shareholders suffered from this “gargantuan” plan.

It is uncertain whether Musk will challenge the ruling made on Tuesday or if Tesla’s board will create a new compensation plan. Musk has dedicated significant time and resources to his goal of reaching Mars through SpaceX, which has become a highly valuable startup and a dominant force in the commercial space industry. He has expressed his intention to utilize options from the 2018 package to finance the colonization of Mars, provided that it is upheld.

The judge acknowledged that colonizing Mars is a costly endeavor and that Musk considers it his moral duty to allocate his wealth towards this objective, with his compensation from Tesla serving as a means to support this mission.

In a tweet shared in 2018, he expressed his intention to allocate approximately fifty percent of his wealth towards addressing earthly challenges, while the other half would be dedicated to establishing a self-sustaining city on Mars. This ambitious plan aimed to ensure the continuity of life, encompassing all species, in the event of catastrophic events such as a meteor impact akin to the extinction of dinosaurs or the occurrence of a global conflict leading to our self-destruction.

The case in question is Tornetta v. Musk, 2018-0408, which was heard in the Delaware Chancery Court located in Wilmington.

Read More: Get Ready for Tax Filing 2024: A Sneak Peek into Smart Strategies and Preparation Tips.