More stories

  • in

    Tesla Shareholders Will Vote on Elon Musk’s Big Payday. What Happens Then?

    The company has lobbied to reinstate the package awarded to Musk six years ago — now worth about $56 billion — after a Delaware judge voided it.After months of fighting over a pay package promised to Elon Musk six years ago — one that included stock grants now worth about $56 billion — matters are finally coming to a head.At Tesla’s annual meeting on Thursday, shareholders are set to vote on whether to reapprove the compensation deal after a Delaware judge voided it in January. The outcome could shift Musk’s relationship with the company, and Tesla officials aren’t taking any chances.“If Tesla is to retain Elon’s attention and motivate him to continue to devote his time, energy, ambition and vision to deliver comparable results in the future, we must stand by our deal,” Robyn Denholm, the company’s chair, wrote to investors on Wednesday.Regardless of the vote’s outcome, further lawsuits and other battles may follow, some of which could test the corporate legal system. Here’s our guide to how different situations could play out.Tesla could use shareholder approval to argue its case for Musk’s pay in court. If it wins the vote on Musk’s compensation, the company is likely to go to Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick, the judge in Delaware’s Court of Chancery who rejected the compensation scheme, and argue that shareholders — armed with the information that she said they hadn’t had when they approved the package — have reratified the proposal. That, the company is expected to say, makes the matter moot.If McCormick declares the plan acceptable, the plaintiffs who initially sued over it are likely to appeal to Delaware’s Supreme Court. Among their potential arguments: The new vote doesn’t resolve a matter that was already decided by a judge, and shareholders’ votes may have been influenced by implied threats to Tesla’s future if the vote didn’t go Musk’s way.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    How Wayne LaPierre Spent the NRA’s Money: Guns and Goodies

    Evidence showed that the National Rifle Association’s leader lived well on donated money as he fought regulations on firearms.The case brought by New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, against the National Rifle Association aimed to show how it used donations from gun owners across the country to pay for luxuries and exotic travel for its executives.Its leader, Wayne LaPierre, was the face of obdurate resistance to regulations on firearms. He argued for untrammeled Second Amendment rights and the self-reliance afforded by firepower. Behind the scenes, however, Mr. LaPierre had a taste for the good life, spending the group’s money on luxuries like Bahamian vacations.But such trips were far from the most lavish or outlandish expenditures. Here are some of the most notable instances of misspending for which he was found liable Friday, according to evidence and testimony.CLOTHES: Between 2004 and 2017, Mr. LaPierre spent nearly $275,000 on suits from a luxury Beverly Hills boutique, Zegna. Mr. LaPierre said he bought them on the recommendation of an N.R.A. contractor who “hated my clothing.” Mr. LaPierre had argued that the suits were just “costumes I wore on TV,” albeit extremely expensive ones.ITALIAN FOOD: Mr. LaPierre testified that he didn’t drink and didn’t smoke, but he certainly knew how to pay a tab: Over 15 days in June 2016, the N.R.A. spent $5,398.18 at Landini Brothers Restaurant, commonly referred to as Landini’s by the defendants, an Italian restaurant in Alexandria, Va. Despite that, Mr. LaPierre seemingly didn’t have a great time. “I hated that cigar bar,” he said.TRAVEL: Mr. LaPierre spent nearly $250,000 on flights around the world, including Italy, Budapest, the Bahamas and the Biggest Little City in World: Reno, Nev. His N.R.A.-paid vacations also sounded lush. He spent $107,620 for a vacation to the Bahamas in 2016, where he stayed on a superyacht that had a personal chef and personal watercraft.GIFTS: Mr. LaPierre was generous, billing the organization for a number of pricey gifts, including a $1,260 handbag and $860 in candlesticks from Bergdorf Goodman. There was also fitness gear, including about $400 in Fitbits for friends and family.INSECT CONTROL: After noticing that his security staff was getting eaten alive, Mr. LaPierre spent $810 on a mosquito control package for his home in 2017. “Security people would be out there all night,” he said. More

  • in

    What Elon Musk Could Lose After His Tesla Pay Deal Is Blocked

    A Delaware court ruling on his $50 billion compensation plan at Tesla raises questions about corporate governance and more.Elon Musk may be forced to give up a grant of Tesla shares worth over $50 billion.Amir Hamja/The New York TimesThe big stakes of Musk’s outsize pay dealAn unusual pay package that Tesla devised in 2018 helped make Elon Musk the world’s wealthiest individual.But a Delaware judge’s ruling that the arrangement was unfair to other Tesla shareholders raises questions about much more than Musk’s net worth, including control of his companies and his ability to fund them — and how corporate leaders are paid.The backstory: In 2018, Tesla set out 12 milestones tied to market capitalization, revenue and profit targets that Musk needed to reach to qualify for a stock package that is now worth over $50 billion. Experts thought it would be impossible to hit. Yet Musk — who told Andrew at the time that Tesla would hit a $1 trillion market cap within a decade — pulled it off. (He hasn’t taken possession of the shares yet.)Shareholders sued, however, arguing that the plan was devised unfairly, with Musk essentially creating his own pay package with the help of allies on the Tesla board.Those shares are now at risk of disappearing. “The process leading to the approval of Musk’s compensation plan was deeply flawed,” Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick of Delaware’s Court of Chancery (who has been blunt in hearings with Musk before) wrote in her decision, ordering that the contract be voided.There’s a lot at stake:Questions about the Tesla board’s independence are being asked as the car maker’s directors weigh a demand by Musk for more control of the company, lest he start moving highly anticipated A.I. projects to other parts of his business empire.Musk has taken out stock margin loans to finance parts of his business empire. He may find it harder to come up with cash if X needs more money, for example.And corporate governance experts say the ruling is a warning to other business leaders. “It establishes that there is such a thing as excessive compensation,” Sarah Anderson of the Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive research group, told The Times.Some legal experts think any Musk appeal faces tough odds. He will probably appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court, they say. But Eric Talley, a professor at Columbia Law School, told DealBook that chancellors like McCormick historically have wide latitude to rule on such punishments.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

  • in

    Robert Kennedy Jr. Reports Income of $7.8 Million

    The presidential candidate and anti-vaccine activist made nearly $1.6 million from consulting work for a law firm known for litigation against pharmaceutical companies, a filing showed.Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the political scion and prominent vaccine skeptic who is challenging President Biden for the Democratic presidential nomination, reported an income of $7.8 million in the year leading up to his entry into the race, including nearly $1.6 million from his consulting work for a personal injury law firm known for litigation against pharmaceutical companies.The details came in a financial disclosure form filed Friday with the Federal Election Commission. It shows that Mr. Kennedy earned $5 million at his environmental law firm, Kennedy & Madonna, and a $516,000 salary and bonus as chairman and chief legal counsel of Children’s Health Defense, a nonprofit group he formed that has campaigned against vaccines. (The disclosure says he has been on leave from the organization since April, when he announced his campaign.)Mr. Kennedy, a leading skeptic of vaccinations and prescription medications, has gained a foothold in the race even as he has contorted facts about vaccine development and public health authorities and increasingly embraced conservative figures and causes.His support among Democrats has reached as high as 20 percent in polls, although a more recent Saint Anselm College Survey Center poll in June put his Democratic support in New Hampshire at 9 percent. He has also appealed to prospective voters outside the party: A Quinnipiac University poll in June found that 40 percent of Republicans viewed him favorably, compared with 31 percent of independents and 25 percent of Democrats.Friday was also the final day of campaign fund-raising for the second quarter for the presidential race. Mr. Kennedy’s campaign sent out solicitations asking donors to help him meet a $5 million goal by the end of the day. His campaign highlighted a $1 million haul in the 24 hours leading up to Friday’s final push.Official numbers will be available in two weeks, when the campaign files reports with the F.E.C.On his disclosure form, Mr. Kennedy reported nearly $1.6 million in consulting fees from Wisner Baum, a Los Angeles-based personal injury law firm formerly known as Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman. The firm’s website lists him as co-counsel on ongoing litigation over Gardasil — an HPV vaccine manufactured by Merck — as well as lawsuits over Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer and California wildfires.Mr. Kennedy also reported $150,000 in consulting fees from the Marwood Group, which describes itself as a health care advisory firm based in New York. And he reported $125,000 from Skyhorse Publishing, which publishes his books and, according to the disclosure, pays him as a consultant.Dennis Kucinich, the former congressman and Mr. Kennedy’s campaign manager, said the disclosure “speaks for itself.” More