Tesla's Stock Option Grant to Elon Musk: Part 2
In this month's article on Executive Compensation, Joseph E. Bachelder III further explores Elon Musk's pay as CEO of Tesla.
June 21, 2018 at 02:45 PM
4 minute read
Tornetta v. Musk et al, |
Musk's Stock Ownership and Pay Compared to Other Founder CEOs
- Comparator Companies
- Stock Ownership Compared
- Pay Compared
a) Musk Option Compared to Equity Awards to Other Founder CEOs
The value of the Musk Option, $2.6 billion, was estimated by Tesla, as noted in the May 1 column, using a so-called Monte Carlo option-pricing model (an alternative to Black Scholes).
The median of the total values of equity awards over the last five fiscal years provided by the 10 comparator companies to their Founder CEOs was approximately $32.6 million (based on grant-date values as reported in proxy statements). The value of the Musk Option is approximately 80 times the median just noted. Significantly, four of the 10 comparator companies did not make equity grants to their Founder CEOs during their last five fiscal years (Alphabet, Amazon, Facebook and Garmin).
Special Note regarding Tesla's Prior Option Grants to Musk: In August 2012, Tesla awarded Musk a stock option to acquire 5 percent of Tesla shares then outstanding. Like the current Musk Option, the 2012 option grant has significant market cap and operating performance hurdles. Prior to that, in December 2009, Tesla awarded Musk a stock option to acquire 8 percent of Tesla shares then outstanding. Fifty percent of the option was subject to performance-vesting, 37.5 percent of the option was subject to time-vesting (over a three-year period), and 12.5 percent of it was fully vested upon grant.
b) Salary and Annual Bonuses: Musk Compared to other Founder CEOs
During the five-year period ending Dec. 31, 2017, Musk received no salary or annual bonus. (Tesla's proxy statements indicate that Musk was provided an annual salary in the range of $33,000 to $50,000 during that five-year period—apparently to comply with minimum wage requirements under California law. They also indicate that Musk did not accept the salary.) The median of the total amounts of salary and annual bonuses paid over the last five fiscal years by the 10 companies to their Founder CEOs was approximately $1.6 million (based on amounts as reported in proxy statements). Four of the 10 comparator companies paid a salary of only $1 to their respective Founder CEOs, and two of those four paid no annual bonus to the Founder CEO.
In summary, the median salary and annual bonus of $1.6 million paid by the comparator companies during the last five fiscal years to their Founder CEOs contrasts with no salary or annual bonus paid to Musk at Tesla. On the other hand, the value of the Musk Option “overwhelms” the value of stock options and other equity grants made by the comparator companies to their Founder CEOs.
|Issues Under Delaware Law
- Corporate Waste
- Musk already owns approximately 20 percent of the shares of Tesla. How much more motivation and incentive to remain as the leader of Tesla does the new stock option provide?
- The value of the Musk Option “overwhelms” the median of the values of the equity grants to Founder CEOs of companies in the comparator group. As noted above, during their last five fiscal years, four of the 10 comparator companies did not make any equity award to the Founder CEOs.
- The terms of the Musk Option do not restrict Musk as to activities outside of Tesla. (Apparently Musk is subject to “Tesla's standard confidentiality agreement” and a “Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement,” both referenced in Musk's 2008 employment offer letter from Tesla.) Musk's current activities outside of Tesla include serving as chief executive officer at a major rocket company, SpaceX, and at two recent start-ups, The Boring Company (a tunnel-construction company) and Neuralink (a company in the business of artificial intelligence).
e.g.
- Independence of Directors
Controlling Shareholder Issue In re Tesla Motors, Inc. Stockholder Litigation Extraordinary Size of Tesla Director Compensation Tesla Shareholder Approval of Musk Option |
Complaint Filed in Delaware Chancery Court Regarding Musk Option
Tornetta v. Musk et al, supra. In re Tesla Motors, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, supra. Joseph E. Bachelder III is special counsel to McCarter & English, LLP. Howard Berkower, a partner with the firm, and Andy Tsang, a senior financial analyst with the firm, assisted in the preparation of this column.
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 AllThe Unraveling of Sean Combs: How Legislation from the #MeToo Movement Brought Diddy Down
When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
8 minute readDeposing Former Mayor Bill de Blasio; Misrepresentations To Induce Investment: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Trending Stories
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