In Good Hands? Elon Musk Provides Tesla's Directors and Officers Liability Insurance
To what extent, if any, Tesla's legal department was involved in advising Musk on the insurance decision was unclear.
April 28, 2020 at 04:19 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
When Tesla Inc. determined that its directors and officers liability insurance policy was too expensive, CEO Elon Musk made the relatively unusual decision to step in and personally provide coverage.
Tesla disclosed the arrangement Tuesday in a 10-K/A filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Attempts to speak with a company representative were not immediately successful.
To what extent, if any, Tesla's legal department was involved in advising Musk on the insurance decision was unclear. But the company has apparently been without a named general counsel since Jonathan Chang exited in late 2019. He was the third Tesla GC to depart within a year.
"I've never heard of anything like this before," said Ed Ryan, former general counsel of Marriott International Inc.
Asked what advice he'd give, as a general counsel, to a CEO who was considering providing D&O insurance, Ryan said:
"I'd say, 'Well, the directors have to sign off on it but, just to begin with, it's a transaction where I'm not representing you, Elon Musk. I'm representing the company and its directors. If you want us to treat you as the insurer in some unrelated party deal, if we can get over the fact that the CEO is our insurer, we have to look at you as: Do you have the capacity? What are the limits? And what backstops are there to make sure everyone is protected?'"
In its SEC filing, Tesla stated that it opted against renewing its D&O policy for the 2019-2020 year "due to disproportionately high premiums quoted by insurance companies.
"Instead, Elon Musk agreed with Tesla to personally provide coverage substantially equivalent to such a policy for a one-year period, and the other members of the board are third-party beneficiaries thereof," Tesla stated.
The company added, "The board concluded that because such arrangement is governed by a binding agreement with Tesla as to which Mr. Musk does not have unilateral discretion to perform, and is intended to replace an ordinary course insurance policy, it would not impair the independent judgment of the other members of the Board."
Musk shouldn't have any trouble covering the insurance premiums. Reuters reported Tuesday that he stands to receive about $750 million from stock options as shares of Tesla rebounded based, at least in part, on anticipation of the company reopening its automotive plant in Fremont, California.
The factory had been shuttered as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak.
"His net worth is probably enough," Ryan said of Musk's ability to provide liability coverage to Tesla's directors and officers. "But you've gotta make sure that it's set aside. When D&O typically comes into play, something terrible has happened to the company. And I don't know what that net worth is at the time."
Read More:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'A Template' for Religious Accommodation: Attorney Gives Insight to $12M Win Over Employer's COVID-19 Vaccination Policies
Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
3 minute read5th Circuit Judge Jones Slams Proposal for Greater Amicus Brief Funding Disclosure
Trending Stories
- 1How to Support Law Firm Profitability: Train Partners Up
- 2Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 3Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 4Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 5X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250