Judge who Nixed Musk’s Pay Mulls Massive Fee Request from Lawyers
By Randall Chase
FILE - Tesla and SpaceX chief executive officer Elon Musk listens to a question as he speaks at the SATELLITE Conference and Exhibition in Washington, March 9, 2020. A Delaware judge heard arguments Monday, July 8, 2024, over a massive and unprecedented fee request by lawyers who argued that a massive and unprecedented pay package for Tesla CEO Musk was illegal and should be voided. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File)
WILMINGTON, Del. (AP) — A Delaware judge heard arguments Monday over a massive and unprecedented fee request by lawyers who successfully argued that a massive and unprecedented pay package for Tesla CEO Elon Musk was illegal and should be voided.
Attorneys for a Tesla stockholder who challenged Musk’s 2018 compensation package are asking Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick to award them legal fees in the form of stock in the electric vehicle company valued at more than $7 billion at current trading prices. The 2018 compensation package for Musk that was rescinded by the judge was potentially worth more than $55 billion.
After a full day of expert-witness testimony and arguments by attorneys, McCormick gave no indication on when she would rule on the fee request.
The fee amount sought by plaintiffs’ attorneys dwarfs the current record $688 million in legal fees awarded in 2008 in litigation stemming from the collapse of Enron.
Attorneys for the Tesla shareholder argue that their work resulted in the “massive” benefit of returning shares to Tesla that otherwise would have gone to Musk and diluted the stock held by other Tesla investors. They value that benefit at $51.4 billion, using the difference between the stock price at the time of McCormick’s January ruling and the strike price of some 304 million stock options granted to Musk.
Attorney Greg Varallo told McCormick that he and his fellow plaintiff lawyers were simply asking for “a slice of the value pie we created.”
“We did battle with the very best,” Varallo added. “Litigation against Tesla is never easy. There are companies who play by the rules every day, and then there are companies like Tesla.”
The plaintiff attorneys argue that their fee request is “conservative” under Delaware law. Instead of a typical 33% fee recovery, they note that they are seeking only 11% of the shares now available to Tesla as the result of Musk’s options being rescinded by McCormick’s ruling. The judge agreed with the shareholder lawyers’ argument that Musk engineered the landmark 2018 pay package in sham negotiations with directors who were not independent.
Following the court ruling, Tesla shareholders met in June and ratified Musk’s 2018 pay package for a second time. McCormick made clear, however, that the June vote would not be considered in determining the request for attorney fees. It instead will be the subject of a separate hearing in early August.
Meanwhile, some opponents of the fee request argue that the plaintiff attorneys deserve no fee at all because they did not bestow any economic benefit on Tesla and instead may have even harmed the company. Opponents contend that the purported reversal of share dilution among Tesla stockholders is not a benefit to the Austin, Texas-based company itself and cannot be used to justify the fee request. They also note that the fee request fails to quantify or subtract potential negative consequences of the ruling, including the need to find a new way to compensate Musk for six years of non-salaried service to Tesla since 2018.
“The market did not react like this rescission remedy bestowed any benefit,” defense attorney John Reed told McCormick, noting that Tesla’s market capitalization dropped by $15 billion after her ruling.
Some critics argue that any fee award should be based only on the number of hours the plaintiff attorneys worked, and a reasonable hourly rate. Adding a multiplier to incentivize attorneys who work on a contingency basis in corporate disputes might also be appropriate, they have suggested. That approach could still result in a fee award of tens of millions of dollars. The current fee request equates to an hourly rate of about $288,000 for plaintiff attorneys and would result in an “unwholesome windfall,” according to opponents.
Acknowledging the criticism that the fee request has received, plaintiff attorneys in a recent court filing proposed an alternative fee structure. Under that scenario, they would be willing to accept $1.44 billion in cash, equating to an hourly fee of about $74,000.
A rare magnum of Dom Pérignon Vintage 1961 champagne that was specially produced for the 1981 wedding of Prince Charles and Lady Diana has failed to sell during an auction. Danish auction house Bruun Rasmussen handled the bidding Thursday. The auction's house website lists the bottle as not sold. It was expected to fetch up to around $93,000. It is one of 12 bottles made to celebrate the royal wedding. Little was revealed about the seller. The auction house says the bids did not receive the desired minimum price.
The New York Times and President Donald Trump are fighting again. The news outlet said Wednesday it won't be deterred by Trump's “false and inflammatory language” from writing about the 79-year-old president's health. The Times has done a handful of stories on that topic recently, including an opinion column that said Trump is “starting to give President Joe Biden vibes.” In a Truth Social post, Trump said it might be treasonous for outlets like the Times to do “FAKE” reports about his health and "we should do something about it.” The Republican president already has a pending lawsuit against the newspaper for its past reports on his finances.
OpenAI has appointed Slack CEO Denise Dresser as its first chief of revenue. Dresser will oversee global revenue strategy and help businesses integrate AI into daily operations. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman recently emphasized improving ChatGPT, which now has over 800 million weekly users. Despite its success, OpenAI faces competition from companies like Google and concerns about profitability. The company earns money from premium ChatGPT subscriptions but hasn't ventured into advertising. Altman had recently announced delays in developing new products like AI agents and a personal assistant.
President Donald Trump says he will allow Nvidia to sell its H200 computer chip used in the development of artificial intelligence to “approved customers” in China. Trump said Monday on his social media site that he had informed China’s leader Xi Jinping and “President Xi responded positively!” There had been concerns about allowing advanced computer chips into China as it could help them to compete against the U.S. in building out AI capabilities. But there has also been a desire to develop the AI ecosystem with American companies such as chipmaker Nvidia.
U.S. sports betting is booming as NFL and college football fuel massive activity. BetMGM CEO Adam Greenblatt breaks down trends, growth, and what’s next.
President Donald Trump says a deal struck by Netflix last week to buy Warner Bros. Discovery “could be a problem” because of the size of the combined market share. The Republican president says he will be involved in the decision about whether federal regulators should approve the deal. Trump commented Sunday when he was asked about the deal as he walked the red carpet at the Kennedy Center Honors. The $72 billion deal would bring together two of the biggest players in television and film and potentially reshape the entertainment industry.
Disney's changes to a program for disabled visitors are facing challenges in federal court and through a shareholder proposal. The Disability Access Service program, which allows disabled visitors to skip long lines, was overhauled last year. Disney now mostly limits the program to those with developmental disabilities like autism who have difficulty waiting in lines. The changes have sparked criticism from some disability advocates. A shareholder proposal submitted by disability advocates calls for an independent review of Disney's disability policies. Disney plans to block this proposal, claiming it's misleading. It's the latest struggle by Disney to accommodate disabled visitors while stopping past abuses by some theme park guests.
