Much as he is a moral monster, I know of no evidence of pedophilia.

I think it’s important to be gracious. I’ll write about this tomorrow. I think the Chancellor can still hold her head high. As for Tesla, it is headed for a big fall, as is Musk.

Tesla shareholders love dilution.

I hear you. Some of those worst people are about to run into problems at SCOTUS. Not on everything, but on important things.

The California DMV was, notwithstanding the Tesla spin, a big loss.

And it will burn Musk's ass to have to pay the Plaintiff's lawyers here approx $60MM.

At least the Court acknowledged there was Board liability, and gave no sanction to the "ratification" gambit.

lol

It's already the Wild West out there, and this won't help matters.

That said, I think the Del Sup Ct's opinion is defensible on its own terms. It essentially acknowledges Defendants' liability, but faults the Plaintiff for not offering a monetary damage remedy. While awarding fees & costs.

7/ Congrats to Tesla for avoiding a huge balance sheet and income statement problem. Congrats to Elon for his win. Congrats to the Plaintiff's lawyers for the attorneys' fee award and for calling to everyone's attention the abysmal governance at Tesla.

6/ What do I make of this? A real "split the baby" decision. It is a careful piece of judicial reasoning that relies on, essentially, procedural technicalities to avoid a ruling that had outraged the Tesla faithful. I need to re-read it with care to have any more to say about it...

5/ It appears (footnote 168) that the attorneys' fees award is $54.5 million plus post-judgment interest (an amount proposed at trial by Tesla). So, for the Plaintiff's lawyers, that award certainly takes some of the sting out of the loss.

4/ ... The Court acknowledged that Plaintiff had established Defendants' wrongdoing, albeit without any proper measure of damages. Consequently, the Court awarded nominal damages of $1 plus attorneys' fees...

3/ The Court held it was Plaintiff's burden to both to establish rescission as a remedy AND to establish his entitlement to alternative (monetary) remedies. Here, the Plaintiff did not offer evidence of those alternative monetary remedies...

2/ The 49-page opinion notes that the justices disagree about liability, but they were able to agree that rescission (of the 2018 grant) was not the appropriate remedy because it failed to restore Elon Musk to his prior position.

Lots of discussion about rescission and burdens of proof.

something else...

In three years, it will be back to the Kennedy center. The idiocy of these unconstitutional executive actions never sees to astound.

I sense tremors. Could be wrong, of course.

2/ "...Mr. Trump, not the most learned of men, may never have even heard of some of these words before he was called them. A borax man seems a finer, near-perfect fit."

Great essay from Joseph Epstein

www.wsj.com/opinion/dona...