Part 7/15:
Richard Tornetta’s counsel contended that the court’s decision to rescind Musk's pay was correct because the process was tainted, and Musk’s influence surpassed mere influence into controlling territory—despite owning less than 25% of Tesla. They argued:
That the decision should not be overturned because control was improperly exercised.
That recision was the appropriate remedy for breach of duty but is difficult to implement here, given Musk’s years of contributions and the changed circumstances.
That shareholder ratification in 2024, after the court’s findings, should not negate the court’s earlier ruling because it was obtained post hoc and under different circumstances.