← All Authorities
United States conflict of interest s175no conflict ruleminority protection

In re Tesla Motors Inc Stockholder Litigation

CA No. 12711-VCS (Del. Ch. 2023)
JurisdictionUnited States
CourtDelaware Court of Chancery
Year2023
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Delaware Court of Chancery rescinded Elon Musk's $55.8bn compensation package as an unfair self-dealing transaction where the board lacked independence and failed the entire fairness standard.

Key Principle

The Delaware Court of Chancery rescinded Elon Musk's $55.8 billion compensation package as an unfair self-dealing transaction, finding the board failed to satisfy the entire fairness standard due to lack of independence and inadequate process.

Area of Law

corporate

Related Cases

ASIC v Cassimatis (No 8) (2016) 336 ALR 209

Directors breached their duty of care under s.180 Corporations Act by failing to prevent the company from providing inappropriate financial advice to retail clients.

Tornetta v Musk C.A. No. 2018-0408-KSJM (Del. Ch. 2024)

Board compensation decisions favouring a controlling stockholder require entire fairness review; subsequent stockholder ratification does not restore business judgment deference.

Slack Technologies LLC v Pirani 598 U.S. 759 (2023)

Section 11 of the Securities Act requires plaintiffs to trace their shares to the allegedly misleading registration statement; claims fail where shares cannot be so traced in a direct listing.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of In re Tesla Motors Inc Stockholder Litigation and how it applies to your situation.

Explain In re Tesla Motors Inc Stockho...