Part 5/15:
Tesla, along with Musk’s representatives, challenged this ruling before the Delaware Supreme Court. The central challenge was to overturn the finding that Musk exercised control over the compensation process and to defend the shareholder vote approving the package. Tesla’s attorneys argued that Musk’s influence was mostly leverage and influence rather than outright control, and that the shareholder votes, which approved the package twice, should be respected as fully informed and voluntary.
Key points raised included:
- Control vs. Influence: The argument that Musk's ownership stake and influence did not amount to control in the legal sense, citing cases like Oracle, which clarify control requires more than influence.