Summarize this content to 2000 words in 6 paragraphs in Arabic Unlock the Editor\u2019s Digest for freeRoula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.Tesla has claimed in a court filing that a proposed $5.2bn award for lawyers who mounted a successful challenge to Elon Musk\u2019s pay package is grossly excessive and they deserve only $13.6mn.In January, a Delaware court voided a proposed $56bn pay package for Musk, saying it was improperly approved by the carmaker\u2019s board and had short-changed shareholders.After the judgment, Greg Varallo, lead lawyer for the plaintiffs\u2019 law firm Bernstein Litowitz, requested an award of roughly 29mn shares in Tesla stock. He argued that receiving that portion of the roughly 267mn net shares that Musk would otherwise have received was in line with recent Delaware precedents that guide how much lawyers get to keep of the \u201cconferred benefit\u201d to shareholders.\u00a0Tesla said in its filing on Friday that the supposed benefits from the original ruling were \u201ctherapeutic or unquantifiable\u201d. It pointed out that the requested award, which was initially valued at $5.6bn, would be 17 times larger than any fee in Delaware legal history and equal to the state\u2019s entire 2024 budget. The company also calculated that the sum was equivalent to $288,000 an hour and would collectively make Bernstein Litowitz and two supporting law firms\u00a0a top-three Tesla shareholder.The \u201cjustification for this extraordinary request defies established Delaware case law, mangles basic economics, and seeks to evade entirely the fairness checks this court imposes on fees\u201d, the company\u2019s lawyers wrote in a court filing on Friday.\u00a0\u201cThis case did not require the Herculean efforts that might justify the highest hourly rate in history by many orders of magnitude,\u201d the filing said.It is the latest salvo in Tesla\u2019s campaign to discredit and overturn the judge\u2019s decision. Next week it is set to hold two votes at its annual meeting. The first seeks shareholders\u2019 backing to restore the $56bn award and the second would move the company\u2019s domicile from Delaware to Texas.At the time of Musk\u2019s pay deal in 2018, Tesla took a $2.3bn accounting charge on the package. Tesla argued that this could be considered the maximum conferred benefit to shareholders, citing other legal precedents to arrive at the far lower $13.6mn figure.Several small shareholders have also submitted \u201cfriend of the court\u201d filings lobbying against Varallo\u2019s historic request.The outcome of the vote at Tesla\u2019s shareholder meeting next week is far from certain, and Musk\u2019s future there may be at stake. If he loses, his ownership will remain at 13 per cent compared with more than 20 per cent if the award is granted. The billionaire \u2014 who also runs SpaceX and social media platform X \u2014 said he would prefer to develop future artificial intelligence products outside Tesla if he did not gain greater control.Tesla\u2019s chair Robyn Denholm has said that it needs to climb \u201cMount Everest\u201d to win the votes, in particular for the reincorporation to Texas, which has a higher threshold for success.Making the task more difficult, influential proxy advisers Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis have both urged investors to vote against the \u201cexcessive\u201d and \u201coutsized\u201d pay award. Additionally, many of Tesla\u2019s international shareholders have found it difficult or impossible to vote.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Summarize this content to 2000 words in 6 paragraphs in Arabic Unlock the Editor\u2019s Digest for freeRoula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.Tesla has claimed in a court filing that a proposed $5.2bn award for lawyers who mounted a successful challenge to Elon Musk\u2019s pay package is grossly<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[63],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-109928","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-tech"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109928","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=109928"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109928\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=109928"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=109928"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=109928"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}