In 2018, with similar advice from the proxy advisers, 73 per cent of the votes cast at the meeting were in favour.

Loading

With a strong retail presence on the register, and some institutions that approved the deal in 2018 feeling a moral obligation to do so again – on the basis that a deal is a deal – it is likely that it will be up to the court to decide whether ratification six years after the event has remedied the issues that led the court to nix it earlier this year.

Circumstances have, of course, changed since 2018.

When the package was first constructed, Tesla’s share price was hovering around $US20. The structure of the package was for 12 tranches of options, each representing 1 per cent of Tesla’s then capital, that would vest if Musk hit market capitalisation targets spaced at $US50 billion intervals. The first tranche would vest at a $US100 billion market capitalisation, the last one at $US650 billion.

In November 2021 Tesla’s market capitalisation was $US1.24 trillion – nearly double the “stretch” target. Today, however, it is “only” $US554 billion, and below the level that would have triggered the final tranche.

Back in 2021, Tesla was the pioneer of electric cars, with a massive lead over any rival. Today, there is a host of competitors, and Tesla’s sales and profits are being swamped by excess capacity in the market, and waves of price-cutting as the substantial excess capacity in China is pushing a tide of cheap electric vehicles (EV) into the global market.

In many respects, the market for EVs is starting to look a lot like the low-margin legacy auto sector, which explains why Musk, with an edge over the Chinese in software and AI, has pivoted to a focus on autonomous driving and “robotaxis”.

Given how significant Tesla’s prospective software is to its future – and to its sharemarket value – Musk’s threat to shift AI development outside Tesla if he doesn’t get his options is potent.

A recent revelation that he diverted Nvidia AI chips destined for Tesla to his social media company X, formerly known as Twitter, and his artificial intelligence start-up xAI Corp, claiming that Tesla “had no place to send the Nvidia chips to turn them on, so they would have just sat in a warehouse”, underscores the coercive nature of that threat.

Loading

It also points to the conflict of interests raised by critics of the incentive deal. Musk isn’t just Tesla’s chief executive but owns X and is either CEO or heavily involved in SpaceX, Neuralink, The Boring Company and the recently-launched xAI Corp.

You’d think that, for $US53 billion, Tesla could expect 100 per cent of Musk’s time and attention during a very challenging phase of its development, but that’s not going to happen between him overseeing his other interests and posting copiously on X.

Soliciting approval for the incentive package, Denholm has said it isn’t about the money. Motivating someone like Musk and keeping him focused on Tesla and keen to achieve the company’s “incomparable ambitions” requires, she said, something different.

To be fair, Musk doesn’t receive a salary but, you’d think, with a shareholding in Tesla worth about $US72 billion even without the incentives (it would have been significantly more if he hadn’t sold a slice to help fund his acquisition of Twitter) he would already have sufficient motivation to focus on his role as Tesla’s CEO.

Loading

The pay package requires a simple majority of the non-conflicted votes cast at the meeting to pass.

There’s another resolution, requiring a majority of all shares on issue, that will also be put to the meeting. Musk, unhappy with his treatment in Delaware, wants to move Tesla’s legal domicile to a more Musk-friendly Texas. He’s already moved some of his companies there and urged other boards and managements to follow him. Delaware is regarded as being a tougher jurisdiction for companies with controlling shareholders than Texas.

Whether a successful passage of that resolution will have any impact on how the Delaware court views a fresh ratification of the 2018 deal – or a renewed challenge to it from dissident shareholders – is unclear. Like a lot of things involving Musk, the situation is messy.