Hacker News Reader

Comment by rpmisms | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, SolarCity was a... stinky acquisition that was mentioned in this case. Some of the relevant false statements related to it.

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.

View on HN

> 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.

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.

So what should have been the penalty?

Kick Elon's brother from the board or a fine or when next package is announced then force tesla to follow certain legal guidelines.

There was nothing wrong with the comp package itself, but forcing a re-vote with disclosure of any false information would be the most appropriate strategy. It's still unfair, because it was a gamble then and a sure thing now, but I suspect it would pass again.

This is what fines are for, though, and they work even better with very profit-sensitive companies like Tesla.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com