Exactly. This would have been a ~$10m judgement for the solarcity hijinks in a sane court.
Also, Tesla won the case about SolarCity. Is your objection that they shouldn't have? Because that seems surprisingly reasonable given your other comments.
Full disclosure, I agreed with Elon's current opinions before he had them, and I'm an avid legal nerd. I try to separate them as best I can, but when cases like this come up I can get a bit testy. I could word the same statements in an anti-Musk way, but this judgement is, to use a technical term, bullshit. My point is that this is a ridiculous penalty for the violations alleged, and simple punitive damages for misrepresented information would have been appropriate. A "slap on the wrist", as it were.
Kick Elon's brother from the board or a fine or when next package is announced then force tesla to follow certain legal guidelines.
This is what fines are for, though, and they work even better with very profit-sensitive companies like Tesla.
Is a fine even possible as a remedy here under Delaware law? Tornetta didn't ask for it, there appears to be no discussion of a fine even as a possible remedy in the decision, and I'm not sure whether Delaware law allows for a fine in the first place.
The closest thing is the discussion about the defendants failing to "identify any logically defensible delta between the unfair Grant and a fair one", so the court was basically left with leaving the grant intact or ordering recission, and it seems in that case the general bias is against the wrongdoer.