Elon Musk’s $56 Billion Pay Deal Rejected for the Second Time: A Battle for Power and Profits
Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla, is no stranger to headlines, whether for his role in revolutionizing the electric car industry, his acquisition of Twitter (now X), or his bold ventures into space with SpaceX. But recently, Musk has been thrust into the spotlight once again due to a record-breaking pay deal that has sparked significant legal and corporate battles. For the second time, Tesla’s $56 billion pay package has been rejected by a Delaware court, marking another major setback in Musk’s pursuit of the world’s largest CEO compensation.
The legal fight surrounding Musk’s pay deal is not just about the size of the compensation, but about governance and the power dynamics between a company’s CEO, its board of directors, and its shareholders. The controversy surrounding Musk’s pay package goes beyond corporate greed—it raises critical questions about executive compensation, shareholder rights, and the very structure of corporate governance in the modern business landscape.
What’s at Stake?
In 2018, Tesla’s board of directors, under Musk’s leadership, approved a compensation plan that was initially valued at $44 billion, making it the largest pay package ever proposed for a CEO. The plan was tied to performance-based milestones, such as the achievement of specific company profits and the performance of Tesla’s stock price. At the time, the deal was groundbreaking and unprecedented in terms of the potential rewards Musk could earn if Tesla met ambitious growth targets.
Fast forward to today, and the compensation package has skyrocketed in value due to Tesla’s impressive rise in stock price, which has nearly doubled in the past year alone. This increase in the stock’s performance has caused Musk’s compensation deal to expand to a staggering $80 billion—a sum so large it seems almost incomprehensible, even for one of the richest men in the world.
However, the deal has faced intense scrutiny since its inception, and Delaware Court Judge Kathaleen McCormick has ruled against it for a second time. In her January ruling, McCormick determined that Tesla’s board was too heavily influenced by Musk, which tainted the fairness of the deal. In essence, McCormick argued that the board was not acting independently when they approved the deal, but instead, Musk’s powerful position at Tesla unduly shaped their decision-making process.
While the shareholders of Tesla voted overwhelmingly in favor of the package—approving it with 75% of votes—McCormick has made it clear that the shareholder vote alone does not make the deal fair or justifiable. According to the judge, the compensation deal was “unfathomable” and not in line with what would be considered reasonable for a CEO, especially given that the company’s board was not fully independent in making the decision.
The Legal and Governance Implications
At the heart of this dispute is a battle over the power dynamics that govern publicly traded companies. In the U.S., Delaware is the corporate home of many publicly listed firms, and the state is known for its pro-business legal environment. However, Delaware's legal framework also aims to ensure that corporate governance remains balanced and fair, especially when it comes to potential conflicts of interest between executives and boards of directors.
In this case, Judge McCormick emphasized that conflict-of-interest rules must be upheld to protect all investors, not just powerful CEOs like Musk. Charles Elson, a renowned corporate governance expert and professor at the University of Delaware’s Weinberg Center, explained that the ruling reflects the importance of maintaining checks and balances on corporate power. Elson praised McCormick’s decision, calling it “well-reasoned,” noting that a board dominated by the CEO cannot provide the necessary oversight to ensure that a pay package is reasonable.
Elson further explained that in cases like this, the role of the board is to act as an independent entity that serves the interests of all stakeholders, not just those of the CEO or the largest shareholders. Musk’s level of influence over the board—combined with the astronomical scale of the pay package—raised serious concerns about the integrity of Tesla’s internal governance processes.
“If a board is under the sway of a single individual, it’s impossible to expect the package to be balanced or reasonable,” Elson said. “This is the largest compensation deal in history and it could have set a troubling precedent for other companies in terms of executive pay.”
The Reaction from Musk and Tesla
Unsurprisingly, Elon Musk has reacted fiercely to the court's decision. In a series of posts on X (formerly Twitter), Musk vented his frustration, calling the ruling “absolute corruption” and arguing that shareholders should have the ultimate say in approving corporate compensation packages, not judges. Musk’s views on corporate governance have long been unconventional, and his stance on this issue is no different.
Musk believes that shareholders, as the rightful owners of the company, should have complete control over important decisions like executive compensation. In a tweet responding to the ruling, Musk wrote, “Shareholders should control company votes, not judges.” This sentiment reflects Musk’s long-held belief that public companies should be run by the people who own them—**the shareholders—and not by external parties like the judiciary or government regulators.
Tesla, too, has strongly defended the pay package and vowed to appeal the court's decision. A statement from the company described the ruling as “wrong,” asserting that it would severely undermine the power of shareholders to make decisions about their company. Tesla argued that if the ruling were upheld, it would give judges and plaintiffs' lawyers the ability to override shareholder decisions and effectively run Delaware-based companies, an outcome the company deems unacceptable.
The legal battle may continue for months, but one thing is clear: Musk and Tesla are not going down without a fight.
The Broader Implications for Executive Compensation
This ongoing saga raises critical questions about the fairness and reasonableness of executive compensation in today’s corporate world. While large pay packages for CEOs are not uncommon, Musk’s deal has drawn attention due to its sheer size and the performance-based nature of the agreement. Tesla’s success in recent years—especially in terms of its soaring stock price—has been a significant factor in the deal’s value, but that does not necessarily mean the deal is fair or justified.
Many critics argue that pay packages like Musk’s create a dangerous precedent and foster a culture of excess in corporate America. Dan Coatsworth, an investment analyst at AJ Bell, pointed out the irony in Musk’s efforts to reform government efficiency while simultaneously pursuing a massive payout for himself. “It’s an obscene amount of money,” Coatsworth said, “and will be seen as insulting to the tens of thousands of workers at Tesla who probably earn a tiny fraction of that amount.”
The public perception of executive pay has been shifting, with more people becoming aware of the pay disparity between CEOs and rank-and-file employees. In the case of Tesla, Musk’s total compensation package could dwarf the salaries of many workers in the company, raising questions about fairness, income inequality, and the growing concentration of wealth at the top.
Related: Elon Musk’s $56 Billion Tesla Payday Shattered by US Judge
Musk’s Future Plans and Tesla’s Strategy
Despite the legal setbacks, Musk’s influence continues to grow. Tesla is one of the most valuable companies in the world, and Musk’s personal fortune is estimated to be around $350 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. Moreover, Musk’s role as the CEO of X (formerly Twitter) and the head of SpaceX only adds to his powerful persona.
As Musk prepares to take on a new role in the Trump administration, where he has been tasked with leading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), his focus may shift to broader political and regulatory issues. The mission of DOGE is to “dismantle government bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure federal agencies.” Ironically, Musk’s fight for a massive paycheck continues to attract attention while he takes on a public role in reforming government efficiency.
It is possible that Tesla, as well as other companies with large, influential CEOs, could face greater scrutiny from regulatory bodies and shareholders in the coming years. With Delaware courts already making significant rulings against excessive CEO compensation, other companies may feel the impact of this precedent, forcing them to reconsider the structure of their executive pay packages.
Related: Trump Taps Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy for Radical Government Overhaul Initiative
Related: Elon Musk's Whimsical World of Merchandise: Collectibles That Mesmerize
Could Tesla’s Pay Deal Be Reworked?
One possible outcome of this legal battle is that Tesla may attempt to restructure Musk’s compensation deal under a more favorable legal framework, such as that found in Texas. Earlier this year, Tesla moved its legal base to Texas, and some have speculated that the state’s more lenient business environment could make it easier for Tesla to secure a similar deal for Musk.
However, even if Tesla successfully reworks the compensation deal, the controversy surrounding the size and fairness of Musk’s pay package will likely continue to make headlines. The debate over executive compensation and shareholder rights is not going away anytime soon.
The Future of Executive Pay and Corporate Governance
The ongoing legal battle over Elon Musk’s record-breaking $56 billion pay package has brought important issues to the forefront of corporate governance. As the case continues to unfold, it is clear that questions surrounding the balance of power between CEOs, boards of directors, and shareholders will continue to be debated.
Ultimately, this case highlights the complex nature of executive pay, and the growing tension between shareholder interests and the demands of corporate governance. Whether or not Musk ultimately receives his massive pay package, the broader implications of this case could reverberate across the corporate world, forcing companies to reevaluate how they compensate their top executives and how much influence a CEO should have over their own paycheck.
