Entire fairness and valuation critique

John is joined by Christopher G. Michel, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Washington, D.C. office and Co-Chair of the firm’s National Appellate Practice. They discuss Michel’s team’s recent victory before the Delaware Supreme Court, reinstating Elon Musk’s Tesla compensation package, now valued at $139 billion, the largest compensation dispute in corporate history. The 2018 pay package required Musk to meet extremely ambitious growth milestones, including doubling Tesla’s size over a ten-year period, before receiving any compensation. After that, there were a series of 12 levels of compensation corresponding to 12 further growth milestones. The Tesla Board approved the package, as did the shareholders with 70% support. He ultimately achieved all the required milestones, growing the company from $50 billion to over $1 trillion in four years. 

Despite that, a Tesla shareholder owning just nine shares brought a derivative suit, alleging the board breached its fiduciary duties in approving the package. The Delaware Chancery Court found Musk to be a “controlling stockholder” due to his 21% ownership, close relationships with directors, and status as a “superstar CEO.”  As a result, the court applied the “entire fairness” standard, under which defendants must prove that a transaction was entirely fair to the shareholders, and found the package did not meet that standard. The court reasoned that Tesla could have obtained Musk’s services for less or even for free, citing other CEOs who had worked without compensation. It also ruled that shareholder approval was invalid due to inadequate proxy disclosures, including the omission of details about Musk’s social ties with board members. The court rescinded the entire compensation package and awarded the plaintiff’s counsel $345 million in attorneys’ fees.

On appeal, the defense team focused on three main arguments: Musk was not a controlling stockholder, the package met the entire fairness standard, and even if there was a violation, rescission was not an appropriate remedy. The Delaware Supreme Court reversed, holding that rescission was unwarranted and awarding nominal damages of $1. It reinstated the pay package, now valued at $139 billion. It also reduced the attorneys’ fee award to $54 million. The case has influenced legislative changes in Delaware corporate law regarding the definition of controlling shareholders and shareholder ratification.

Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn 
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi