Warren Redlich talk about Delaware Judge Document about Elon 55B Comp
发布时间 2024-01-31 23:43:07 来源
中英文字稿 
Hello, hello, hello. Hello, hello, hello. Am I here? Now what? Everyone chat, I'll turn on the hearts. We'll start it immediately. Other options should be fine. I'm now going to click create broadcast at the top. Now I got a link to a broadcast. We can click on it to confirm that the broadcast is. Hey, this is Warren Redlich. Am I here? Someone here. Hello. Come on chat, I'll turn on the hearts. We'll start it immediately. Other options should be. Okay. But immediately, other options should be fine. I'm now going to click create broadcast at the top. Now I got a link to a broadcast. We're going to click on it and sit on confirm that the broadcast.
你好，你好，你好。你好，你好，你好。我在这里吗？现在该怎么办？大家聊一聊吧，我会打开心形图案。我们立即开始。其他选项应该没问题。我现在要点击顶部的“创建广播”按钮。现在我得到了一个广播链接。我们可以点击它来确认广播是否正常。嗨，这是Warren Redlich。我在这里吗？有人在吗？你好。快点聊天吧，我会打开心形图案。我们立即开始。其他选项应该没问题。好的。但是立即开始的话，其他选项应该也没问题。我现在要点击顶部的“创建广播”按钮。现在我得到了一个广播链接。我们要点击它来确认广播是否正常。
Hey, this is Warren Redlich. Come on here. Someone here. Hello, hello, hello. Hey, this is Warren Redlich. I am reading the Delaware court decision right now. And let's talk about what we learned from it. Where is my. Learning how to do this. Let's see. Let's pin this to my profile. Okay. So a bunch of people messaged me that they wanted to know what's going on with the Delaware court decision. And I am reading it right now.
嘿，我是沃伦•雷德利奇。快来这里。这里有人。你好，你好，你好。嘿，我是沃伦•雷德利奇。我现在正在阅读特拉华州法院的决定书。让我们谈谈我们从中学到了什么。我的东西在哪里。学习如何做这个。让我们看看。让我们把它固定在我的个人资料上。好的。一群人给我发消息说他们想知道特拉华州法院决定书中发生了什么。我现在正在阅读它。
This is the Delaware court decision. And this is my first live stream, I think, on the X platform. I don't know how this is going to work. I don't know how I'm going to read the chat. Is there a chat? How do I read the chat? I don't know how any of this works. But we'll figure it out. Or we won't figure it out. I've restricted the chat to verified users.
这是特拉华州的法院判决书。这是我在X平台上的第一次直播，我觉得，我不知道这会怎么运作。我不知道如何阅读聊天。有一个聊天框吗？我如何阅读聊天内容？我不懂其中的任何操作方式。但我们会搞清楚的。要么我们搞清楚，要么就算了。我已经限制只有经过验证的用户才能聊天。
Okay. So this is the court decision here. I think there's a lag. I don't know what. Let me pull up. Let's see. So this is the court decision here. Richard Tornetta, apparently some dude who. I do this. Okay. Richard Tornetta, apparently some dude who owns like eight or 10 shares of Tesla, somehow able to file this lawsuit against Elon Musk, Robert Denholm. These are board members of the Tesla board and Tesla, the corporation. And then a bunch of lawyer names. So you know what's going on here. And then this is the judge's name, Judge McCormick.
好的。所以这是法庭的裁决。我想有点滞后。我不知道是什么原因。让我找一下。让我们看看。所以这是法庭的裁决。Richard Tornetta，显然是一个拥有大约八到十股特斯拉的家伙，竟然能够对埃隆·马斯克、罗伯特·丹霍姆尔姆提起诉讼，他们是特斯拉董事会的成员以及特斯拉公司本身。然后有一堆律师的名字。所以你知道这里发生了什么。然后这是法官的名字，麦考密克（Judge McCormick）。
Was the richest world person in the world overpaid? This is not necessarily typical for judges to do. The judge is. Where? Is there a chat? How does this work? World person in the world overpaid. This is not necessarily typical for judges to do. Just so you guys know, I don't know where the chat is. And I don't know if I'm going to figure it out. So I'm just going to go ahead with my video and we'll see how it works.
这个世界上最富有的人被支付过多了吗？这对于法官来说并不一定是典型的。法官是在哪里？有没有聊天室？这是怎么回事？这个世界上最富有的人被支付过多了。这对于法官来说并不一定是典型的。只是提醒大家，我不知道聊天室在哪里。我也不知道自己是否能找到它。所以我就继续录制我的视频，看看情况如何。
Okay. Still working this out. First time live streaming on X. So the stockholder plaintiff in this derivative lawsuit says so he claims that breached. The plan offer he's describing the plan here. So 12 total branches, four trans to vest, test of market capital. So the stockholder plaintiff in this derivative lawsuit says so he claims that breached. The plan offer he's describing the plan here. So 12 total branches, four trans to vest, test of market capital increased by 50 billion and other targets with a 55.8 billion dollar maximum value and 2.6 billion dollar grant date bear value. The plan is the largest potential compensation opportunity ever observed in public markets by multiple orders of magnitude. 250 times the contemporary, the contempt larger than the contemporaneous medium peer compensation. And over 33 times larger than the plan's closest comparison, which is must prior compensation plan.
好的。还在研究中。第一次在X平台上进行直播。因此，在这个衍生诉讼中，股东原告声称违反了计划提供的规定。他在这里描述了计划。一共有12个分支，其中有四个转向集中，以市值进行测试。股东原告在这个衍生诉讼中声称违反了计划提供的规定。他在这里描述了计划。总共有12个分支，其中有四个转向集中，以市值进行测试，增加了500亿美元，并且还有其他目标价值高达558亿美元和拨款日期价值为26亿美元。该计划是公开市场上迄今观察到的最大潜在补偿机会，超过多个数量级。比当代同行的报酬大250倍，并且比该计划的最接近对比（即以前的补偿计划）大33倍。
Okay. So multiple orders of magnitude. I think it's one and a half orders of magnitude larger than Elon's previous plan. Post child decision enters judgment for the plaintiff. Under the finding that the compensation plan is subject to review under the entire fairness standard. The defendants bore the burden of proving that the compensation was plan was fair and they failed to meet their burden.
好的。所以是几个数量级的差距。我认为这个计划比埃隆之前的计划大一个半数量级。提前作出的决定被认定为有利于原告。根据整体公平标准，赔偿计划应受到审查。被告承担证明赔偿计划是公平的责任，但他们未能履行自己的责任。
Okay. So this is an important step to understand as a lawyer. Enrous judgment for the plaintiff means Tesla loses. Finding that the compensation plan is subject to review under the entire fairness standard. I don't know what the entire fairness standard is yet. I don't know what led to the decision that that's the standard that applies, but it leads to this conclude and we'll find that out when we read the decision. This is a 200 page decision. So this is probably going to be a long live stream. The defendants bore the burden of proving that the compensation plan was fair and they failed to meet their burden.
好的，作为一名律师，理解这一重要步骤非常重要。对原告的不利判决意味着特斯拉输了。裁决认为薪酬计划应符合全面公正规范进行审查，我还不知道全面公正规范具体是什么。我也不知道是什么原因导致决定适用这一标准，但我们将在阅读决定书时了解这一点。这是一份有200页的决定书，所以这可能是一场漫长的直播。被告有责任证明薪酬计划是公平的，但他们未能履行这一责任。
So because I can't, I don't understand how to interact with the chat. I don't know if there is a chat. I don't know how I would interact with the chat. I thought I set up a chat. I don't see a chat. So I can't, I'm really frustrated by this. This is one of those things like. Can somebody tell me how to interact with the chat? I don't even know.
所以因为我不能，我不知道如何与聊天互动。我不知道是否有聊天功能。我不知道如何与聊天互动。我本以为我设置了聊天功能，但我没有看到聊天界面。所以我不能，这让我非常沮丧。这就是其中一件事情，就像是，“有人能告诉我如何与聊天互动吗？”我甚至不知道。
Okay.
So if somebody, if somebody understands how to operate a chat, let me know because I don't see it. And I will check my DMS occasionally to see if I could figure out like there's no button to turn on the chat. There's no like. I thought I configured it for a chat. Anyway, all right, let's get back to the decision.
好的。
所以，如果有人知道如何操作聊天功能，请告诉我，因为我找不到它。我会不时地查看我的私信，看看我是否能找到如何打开聊天功能的方法。没有按钮可以打开聊天功能。我以为我已经配置了聊天功能。不管怎样，好吧，让我们回到决策上。
So they failed to meet their burden. So here's the key point here. There's a decision that the judge makes. What standard am I applying? If I apply this standard, then the burden is on the plaintiffs, which is the guy suing Tesla, that he has to show something. If I decide that the burden is on the defendants, that means Tesla has to prove that the plan was fair. That's the critical decision early in this decision is, is the decision. Who has to prove that the plan is either fair or unfair. And if you have to prove the plan is fair, that's a harder standard for Tesla to meet.
所以他们未能承担起自己的责任。这里有一个关键点。在法官作出决定时，有一个标准我要应用，我应该采用哪个标准？如果我采用这个标准，那么原告负有举证责任，也就是那个起诉特斯拉的人，他必须提供证据。如果我决定被告负有举证责任，那就意味着特斯拉必须证明这个计划是公平的。在这个决定的早期阶段，这个决定是至关重要的。谁必须证明这个计划是公平的或不公平的。如果你必须证明这个计划是公平的，那对特斯拉来说是一个更难以达到的标准。
A board of directors decision. And is this readable? A board of directors decision, how much to pay a company's chief executive officer is the quintessential business determination subject to great judicial deference. But, Delaware law recognizes unique risks inherent in a corporation's transactions with its controlling shareholder. Given those risks under Delaware law, the presumptive standard review for conflicted controller transactions is entire fairness.
董事会决策。这段话的意思是，董事会决定公司首席执行官的薪酬是最为重要的商业决策之一，受到司法的高度尊重。但是，特拉华州法律认识到公司与控股股东的交易存在独特风险。根据特拉华州法律规定，对于涉及有冲突的控股交易，预设的标准审议是整体公平性。
以上句子可读性较高。
So the plaintiffs argue that, so this is the first step. Was the plan a conflicted controller transaction? In other words, does must control Tesla. In other words, is this a case where the compensation plan was decided by objective board members? Or was. Elon, was there a conflict among the people controlling the decision? A conflict as in a conflict of interest. So.
原告们认为，这是第一步。计划是不是存在利益冲突的控制交易？换句话说，马斯克是否必须控制特斯拉？换句话说，这是否是一个由客观董事会成员决定的报酬计划案例？还是说，埃隆·马斯克和控制这个决定的人之间存在利益冲突？利益冲突指的是利益上的冲突。所以。
Delaware courts have been presented with this question thrice before. Check something here. Shamara says the video looks good. Thank you. We're watching the chat. Is there a chat? I don't know where the chat is. How do I find the chat? Why can't I see my own chat? Yeah. If I go here, can I see the chat? No, if I go full screen, let's go. Don't see the chat. Come on, man. All right. So.
特拉华州法院之前已经三次面临这个问题。在这里检查一下。沙玛拉说视频看起来很好。谢谢。我们在观看聊天记录。有聊天吗？我不知道聊天在哪里。怎么找到聊天记录？为什么我看不到自己的聊天记录？是的，如果我在这里，我能看到聊天记录吗？不，如果我全屏，让我们去。看不到聊天记录。拜托，伙计。好吧。所以。
This is just the comedy of live streaming and doing stuff. You don't know what you're doing. I know how to record decisions. I don't know how to do live streams. Delaware questions have presented with this question thrice before when more Android judges found ways to avoid definitely resolving, depending on what's on it. This decision dares to boldly go where no man has gone before, at least where no Delaware court has tread.
这只是直播和做事情的喜剧。你不知道自己在做什么。我知道如何记录决策，但不知道如何进行直播。特拉华州的问题在此之前已经三次提出了这个问题，更多的安卓法官找到了避免绝对解决的方法，这取决于其中的内容。这个决定敢于大胆地前进，至少在德拉华州法院从未涉足的地方。
Okay. So this is an important detail. I don't know how appeals work in Delaware. When the judge is following, this is how we've done things. Sorry. When a judge is following, this is how we've done things before. Then. If the judges, how things are done before, you're less likely to win an appeal. I don't know whether there's an appeal possible in this case, but since the judge is openly saying. No courts decided this before. I'm the first one. Well, that would suggest that there's an opportunity for a super a higher level court to review the decision. If you're winging it, basically pulling it together, then that's a challenge that leads to a potential appeal, whether Tesla will appeal, whether Tesla will do some other thing will come to that later.
好的。所以这是一个重要的细节。我不知道特拉华州的上诉程序是如何运作的。法官按照这样的方式进行判决，这是我们之前所做的。抱歉。当法官按照之前的方式进行判决时，你赢得上诉的可能性会降低。我不知道在这个案件中是否有上诉的可能性，但由于法官明确表示，之前没有法院做过这样的决定，我是第一个。嗯，这说明有机会让更高级别的法院审查这个决定。如果你只是胡乱拼凑，那就会面临被上诉的挑战，特斯拉是否会上诉，特斯拉会采取其他行动，我们稍后会讨论。
The collection of features characterizing musk's relationship with the Tesla and its directors gave him enormous influence over Tesla. In addition to his 21.9% equity stake, Musk was the parent of Matt, I think that's Elon's equity stake before the pay package was awarded. He was the parent, the Maddox superstar CEO, who else in the most influential corporate positions CEO, chair and founder enjoyed thick ties with the director's task with negotiating on behalf of Tesla and dominated the process that led to board approval of his compensation plan. At least this transaction must control Tesla.
埃隆·马斯克与特斯拉及其董事的种种特征构成了他对特斯拉的巨大影响力。除了他持有的21.9%股权，马斯克还是马特的父亲，我认为这是在薪酬套餐获得之前的马斯克的股权。他是马特超级明星首席执行官的父亲，同时在首席执行官、董事长和创始人等最具影响力的企业职位上与负责代表特斯拉进行谈判的董事们之间有着紧密联系，主导了董事会批准他的薪酬计划的过程。至少这笔交易必须掌握在特斯拉的控制之下。
So, I assume we're going to find this details in the decision. This is the judge, I think, summarizing what he found after he reviewed the evidence. I don't know. It's my impression that Elon did not dominate the process of board approval of his compensation plan. My impression was that Elon stayed hands off that Campbell stayed hands off. And that the board, you know, Elon negotiated a package, the board reviewed it without Elon's push. Maybe we're going to find out over the course of the decisions that Elon pressured the board. That he used his influence, his share, you know, ownership, his other influence over people and he pushed for what he wanted. I don't know.
所以，我假设我们将在决定中找到这些细节。我觉得这是法官在审查证据后总结他所发现的内容。我不知道。我的观感是，埃隆在董事会批准他的薪酬计划方面并没有起主导作用。我觉得埃隆和坎贝尔都没有插手其中。董事会，你知道，埃隆谈判了一个方案，董事会在没有埃隆推动的情况下进行了审查。也许我们会在决定中发现埃隆对董事会施压。他利用他的影响力、股份以及对他人的其他影响力来推动他想要的东西。我不知道。
So, enjoy thick ties with the director's task with negotiating on behalf of Tesla. Okay, so Ira Aaron prize I'm guessing is the guy he's referring to, but we'll find out.
那么，尽情享受与代表特斯拉进行谈判的总监紧密关联的任务吧。好的，伊拉·艾伦奖我猜是他提到的那个人，但我们会弄清楚的。
The primary consequence of this finding is that defendants for the burden of proving a trial, the compensation plan was entirely fair. Delaware law allows defendants to shift the burden proof under the entire fairness standard where the transaction was approved by a fully informed vote of the majority of the minority stockholders. And here Tesla conditioned the compensation plan on a majority of the minority vote, but the defendants were unable to prove that the stockholder vote was fully informed because the proxy statement inaccurately described key directors as independent and misleadingly omitted details about the process.
这一发现的主要结果是，被告需要承担证明审判公平的责任，该补偿计划完全公正。特拉华法律允许被告在整体公平标准下转移证明责任，前提是交易获得了大部分少数股东完全知情的投票批准。而特斯拉在这里将补偿计划条件借助多数少数股东的投票，但被告无法证明股东投票过程中完全知情，因为代理人声明对关键董事的独立身份描述不准确，并误导性地省略了有关程序的详情。
Okay, so the claim here by the judge and by the plaintiff and I don't know whether the judge is being fair or not. Defendants were unable to prove the stockholder vote was fully informed because the proxy statement and accurately described key directors as independent.
好吧，法官和原告在这里提出了这样的主张，我不知道法官是否公正。被告无法证明股东投票是充分知情的，因为代理声明并没有准确地描述核心董事会成员是独立的。
Okay, I assume we're going to get these details later. The defendants were thus left with the unenviable task approving the fairness of the largest potential constant compensation plan. So this is the critical detail. This is really the critical detail. The proxy statement that we voted on. I'm pretty sure I vote. I don't remember what the date was of this plan. What was the date of this plan? January 2018.
好的，我假设我们将在以后获得这些细节。被告因此被留下了一个令人不悦的任务，即审批最大潜在常数补偿计划的公平性。所以这是关键细节。这真是一个关键细节。我们投票表决的代理声明。我很确定我投了赞成票。我不记得这个计划的日期是什么。这个计划的日期是什么？2018年1月。
I think it was January 2018 and I would have voted on this plan because I own stock starting in February 2016. So I believe I voted on the for this plan and I would have voted for this plan, even if I didn't vote for this plan. So the key decision the judge made here is, you know, I'm going to say. Even if on the fairness standard, I think the plan was fair, but what he's argued, the idea is when you have the shareholders vote and approve the plan, you're okay, but the shareholders have to be fully informed and the judges claiming the shareholders were not fully informed. Is he right? I don't know. Let's see if we're getting any other messages from people. How are we doing? Yeah, no chat people are chatting. I don't know where the chat is. Just ignore the chat. Yeah, I'm going to ignore the chat.
我认为是在2018年1月，我可能会投票支持这个计划，因为我从2016年2月开始持有股票。所以我相信我投票支持了这个计划，即使我没有投票支持这个计划。所以这个法官在这里做出的关键决定是，你知道的，我要说的是，即使从公平标准来看，我认为这个计划是公平的，但他所主张的观点是当股东投票并批准计划时，才算可以。但是法官认为股东没有得到充分的信息。他是对的吗？我不知道。让我们看看是否有其他人给我们留言。我们做得怎么样？是的，没有人在聊天。我不知道聊天在哪里。就忽略聊天吧。是的，我会忽略聊天。
Okay, folks. So, all right. Let's see. The primary consequence of this finding is defendant sport, the burden of proving a trial that the compensation was planned allows the shift the parent burn approved for. Okay. So we covered that. So left with the on every old task of proving the fairness of the largest potential compensation plan in the history of public markets. In other words, this is the largest potential compensation plan in the history of public markets. Any set of attorneys could have achieved victory in these unlikely circumstances. It was a talented defense or attorneys here, but the task proved to all in order. So.
好的，朋友们。嗯，好的。让我们来看看。这个发现的主要后果是被告方运动，即在审判中证明赔偿计划是有计划的，允许转移父母批准的负担。好的，我们已经涵盖了这一点。因此，我们现在面临的是证明有史以来公共市场上最大潜在补偿计划的公正性这一艰巨任务。换句话说，这是有史以来公共市场上最大的潜在补偿计划。在这种不太可能的情况下，任何一组律师都可以取得胜利。这里的辩护律师团队确实很有才华，但任务证明对所有人来说都很困难。
So, and the concept of fairness costs for holistic analysis. Just give me one second.
因此，公平成本是整体分析的概念。请给我一点时间。
All right, this requires air conditioning. I'm in a new, I'm in a new Airbnb condo in Bangkok. So.
好的，这里需要空调。我住在曼谷一个新的Airbnb公寓里。嗯。
The process leading to the approval. So the concept of fairness calls for holistic analysis. It takes the consideration to basic issues process and price. The process was deeply flawed must have must had extensive ties with the person's task with negotiating on Tesla's behalf. He had a 15 year relationship with the compensation committee chair, Ira Aaron prize. I guess correctly that Ira is the person he's blaming the other compensation committee member working placed on the working group on Tony. Gracias had business relationships with Musk dating back over 20 years as well as the sort of personal relationship that had him vacationing with Musk's family on a regular basis. The working group included management members who were beholden to Musk such as general counsel Todd Marin, who was Musk's former divorce attorney and whose must admiration for Musk moved him to tears during his deposition. In fact, Marin was a primary go between between Musk and the committee and it is unclear on whose side Marin viewed himself. Yet many of the documents cited by defendants as proof of a pair process were drafted by Marin.
导致获批的过程。所以公平概念需要进行全面分析。这需要考虑基本问题的过程和价格。过程严重有缺陷，必定与这个人在代表特斯拉进行谈判的任务上有广泛的联系。他与薪酬委员会主席艾拉·亚伦·普赖斯有15年的关系。我猜测艾拉就是他指责在托尼身上的其他薪酬委员会成员。格拉西亚斯与马斯克有超过20年的商业关系，还有这样一种私人关系，使他经常与马斯克的家人一起度假。工作组包括对马斯克有所依附的管理成员，如总顾问托德·马林，他曾是马斯克的离婚律师，在他的证词中，他对马斯克的崇敬使他落泪。事实上，马林是马斯克和委员会之间的主要联系人，不清楚他站在哪一边。然而，被被告引用作为证明公正程序的许多文件都是由马林起草的。
Okay, so. I'm reading this and I think I'm naturally concluding. I tend to believe a judge what a judge writes when a judge writes it even though I might not like the results. So this is true. He had a long relationship with Aaron prize. He had a very people know he I think. Gracias might be on the board of SpaceX as well. One of the challenges of running a large corporation is you're supposed to have independent board members. When you have independent board members and Robin Denholm is a good example of someone who's probably an independent board member. He hasn't mentioned Denholm yet.
好的，所以，我正在阅读这篇文章，我觉得我自然而然地得出了结论。我倾向于相信当法官写下一件事情时，即使我可能不喜欢结果，我也相信法官。这是真实的。他与亚伦·普赖斯有着长久的关系，我认为他的许多人都知道。格拉西亚斯也可能是SpaceX的董事会成员。经营一家大型企业的一个挑战是你应该有独立的董事会成员。当你有独立的董事会成员，罗宾·丹霍姆是一个很好的例子，他可能是一个独立的董事会成员。他还没有提到丹霍姆。
And I would assume that Denholm played an important role in this decision process, but you know the bar the board is Kimball Musk now Kimball stayed out of this decision making, but I were Aaron prize somebody who's been tight with the line for as the judge puts it 15 years at the time. And Gracias had a business relation must be back over 20 years personal relationships.
我认为丹霍姆在这个决策过程中发挥了重要的作用，但是你知道董事会的门槛现在是金博尔·马斯克。金博尔在这个决策中保持了距离。但我是阿隆·普赖兹，有15年与公司有着紧密联系的人，格拉西亚斯与该公司有着超过20年的商业关系和个人关系。
The judge is showing here that the people who are making decisions. So there's a negotiation going on between Tesla and Elon. And the judge is arguing or explaining his opinion that the people on on the Tesla board who are supposedly arguing for Tesla's interests are too close to Musk to be fair. I don't you know, I don't personally care about you know I'm more interested in the result. I'm more interested in the consequences of the results. We're going to get to that. I think it's a pretty fair point.
法官在这里表明，做出决策的人们正在展开协商。因此特斯拉和埃隆之间存在一场谈判。法官正在辩论或解释他的观点，即特斯拉董事会上那些据说为特斯拉利益辩护的人对于马斯克来说太亲近，无法公正对待。我个人不关心这个问题，我更关注的是结果。我们将会得到这个结果的后果。我认为这是一个相当公正的观点。
I didn't read the proxy. So I don't know whether the proxy was fair or not. I think the proxy you know what he's describing you know judges make their decisions based on what they make their decisions on. I really think the ultimate question is is the plan fair and I think the plan was fair. But what he's saying is the process isn't fair.
我没有阅读委托书，所以不知道委托书是否公平。我认为你知道他在描述什么，你知道法官基于什么做出决策。我真的认为最重要的问题是计划是否公平，而我认为这个计划是公平的。但是他所说的是过程不公平。
Okay, given the collection of people tasked with negotiating on Tesla's BAFTA is unsurprising. There was no meaningful negotiation over any of the terms of the plan. Aaron Price testified he did not view the negotiation as an adversarial process. I don't see that the negotiation has to be adversarial. There was no position on the negotiation. The testimony came as close to admitting a controlled mindset as it gets.
好的，鉴于参与特斯拉BAFTA谈判的人员集合，这并不令人意外。关于该计划的任何条款，都没有进行有意义的谈判。亚伦·普赖斯作证称，他并没有把谈判视为对抗性的过程。我认为谈判不一定要对抗。在谈判中没有明确的立场。这份证词已经接近承认一种受控思维方式了。
And consistent with this specific to Musk approach the committee avoided using objective benchmarking data that would have revealed the unprecedented nature of the compensation plan. So yeah, look we're going to get to this later in the decision. I'm sure is the compensation plan unprecedented yet, but. Elon got squat if the company didn't grow. So you know to me what we're going to get to later in this decision is the reason the plan should have been approved is because the value of the plan according to all the experts at the time in the plan was approved is the value of the plan was zero. Because Tesla was never going to achieve the goals. The Gordon Johnson's of the world all these other you know experts every Wall Street expert it was like well you know Tesla's never going to get anywhere blah blah blah blah blah. Only the true believers thought this was actually going to happen.
同样与马斯克的特定方法相一致，委员会避免使用揭示了补偿计划史无前例特性的客观基准数据。所以是的，我们将在决定中稍后提到这一点。我敢肯定补偿计划是史无前例的，但如果公司没有增长，马斯克将一无所获。所以在我的看法中，我们在这个决定中稍后要讨论的原因是，根据当时所有专家的观点，计划的价值在计划获得批准时的价值是零。因为特斯拉永远不会实现这些目标。高登·约翰逊和其他所谓的专家们都认为特斯拉永远走不远之类的。只有真正的信仰者才认为这是可能发生的。
Trying to stabilize my platform I think I'm doing the exact opposite right here but we'll see how it goes. So and I'm sorry I'm in a new space I'm figuring it out so I don't really have an ideal situation for doing this video but we'll see what you can do. In credit to these witnesses the testimony was truthful that's very nice. The witnesses were honest about their bias. They did not take a position on the other side of Musk it was a cooperative venture there were no position on negotiations. Musk proposed a grant size and structure in that proposal supplied the terms considered by the compensation committee and the board until Musk. Unilateral lower disasters months later.
我试图稳定我的平台，但我觉得我正在做相反的事情，不过我们会看情况如何发展。对不起，我现在处于一个新的环境，正在摸索着，所以我没有一个理想的情况来做这个视频，但我们会看你能做些什么。对这些证人的信誉表示赞扬，证词是真实的，非常好。证人坦诚地表明了他们的偏见。他们对马斯克的立场持中立态度，这是一个合作的努力，在谈判中没有表明立场。马斯克提出了一份资助的规模和结构，这份提案提供了董事会和薪酬委员会考虑的条款，直到几个月后马斯克单方面降低了规模。
Musk did not seem to care much about the other details they got ironed out okay so right here. Musk did not seem to care much about the other details that shows he's not controlling the transaction. Right if Musk did not care about the other details he had as this is what I want. And he didn't care about the other details if he was very focused on details then. It's so it's not okay so thank you Shamara Shamara's live live blogging the chat for me thank you Shamara. I don't write I'd like to make I think Shamara's got the solution to the chat. Shamara is telling me what's happening in the chat and that'll work fine. So Shamara keep keep DMing me if you see something in the chat that I need to look at so.
马斯克似乎并不太在乎其他他们称之为解决了的细节。这表明他并不掌控这笔交易。如果马斯克并不在意其他细节，那就是他想要的。他如果非常专注于细节，那么他就不会不在意其他细节了。所以非常感谢Shamara为我直播聊天内容，谢谢Shamara。我不太写东西，我想Shamara找到了解决聊天问题的办法。Shamara告诉我聊天中发生的事情，这样就可以了。所以Shamara，如果你在聊天中看到我需要关注的内容，请继续私信告诉我。
So this is I think this is an important distinction if you're going to claim that Musk controlled the transaction. And then you're going to say he didn't care much about the other details they got ironed out well then he's not controlling the transaction. It sounds like mucks Musk said this is what I want lowered what he said he wanted six months later. And they just went along with what he wanted on the substance but there's a lot of details involved and they didn't he didn't quibble on the details in this litigation the defendants touted as concessions certain features of the compensation plan a five year holding period and M and A adjustment. That this and it's well trans structure the required festival to increase market cap by a hundred billion more than Musk had initially proposed to maximize compensation under the plan. Wait if he controlled the transaction and he avoided other details and they raised the the market cap by a hundred billion dollars more than he proposed. How is this a controlled transaction okay I'm judging without seeing the judges full analysis but we've got two things here that go against the idea that Musk controlled the transaction one you just admitted he didn't care much about the other details and to this is a I'm going to swear now this is a pretty big fucking detail. Required test that increased market cap by a hundred billion more than Musk had initially proposed to maximize compensation under the plan. A hundred billion more market cap. What was the market cap at the time like forty billion. And you know the market cap ended up paying like seven hundred billion like. That's not that's not controlling the process if Musk didn't. Didn't haggle over that and the board did it on their own all right so we have a problem okay now again I haven't read the whole decision you're watching me read this live so I'm reading the judges initial discussion.
所以我认为，如果你要声称马斯克控制了这笔交易，这是一个重要的区别。然后你要说他并不太关心其他细节，这些细节确实得到了很好的解决，那么他就没有控制这笔交易。听起来像是马斯克说“这就是我想要的”，然后六个月后他改变了自己的要求。他们只是按照他的要求行事，但其中涉及了很多细节，而他在这起诉讼中并没有对这些细节提出异议。被告方在这项补偿计划中吹嘘某些特定特征，如五年的持有期和并购调整。但这一计划涉及到了大量的细节，并且他并没有对这些细节进行争论。他们还要求市值提高一千亿美元，比马斯克最初提出的要求多出一百亿美元，以最大程度地实现补偿计划。等等，如果他控制了这笔交易，并且不关心其他细节，而他们将市值增加了一千亿美元，比他最初提出的要求多出一百亿美元，这怎么能算是一笔受控制的交易呢？好吧，我没有看到法官的完整分析，但我们在这里有两个事实反对马斯克控制交易的观点：首先，你承认他并不太关心其他细节；其次，这是个相当重要的细节，市值增加了一千亿美元。当时的市值是多少？约四百亿美元？而最终市值达到七千亿美元。如果马斯克没有对此进行讨价还价，而董事会是自行决定的，那么这就不是一个受控制的过程。所以我们有一个问题，好吧，再说一次，我还没有看完整个判决，你正在看我现场阅读法官的初步讨论。
And the underlying question by the way that I don't know the answer to and I don't think I'll have the answer by the end of the stream is. In Tesla appeal is an appeal likely to succeed my in my general sense is that when a judge like this issues a decision in Delaware that's probably it either is no appeal or appeals are unlikely to succeed. Given that the judges said hey this is the first time anybody's ever decided this type of question. That does seem to leave it open to an appeal if there is an appeal but I don't know if there's an appeal or not.
顺便提一下，有一个基本问题，我不知道答案，也不认为在直播结束前我会知道答案。在特斯拉的上诉中，成功的可能性较大，我个人感觉是这样的，当像这样的法官在特拉华州做出决定时，可能就是最终结论，要么没有上诉，要么上诉成功的可能性很小。考虑到法官说这是第一次有人对这种问题做出决定，看起来似乎是有上诉的余地，但我不知道是否会有上诉。
The holding period was adopted in part to increase the discount on the publicly disclosed grant price the M&A adjustment was industry standard and the twelve trans structure was reached in an effort to dil translate musks fully diluted share proposal to the boards preferred total outstanding shares metric is not accurate to refer to these terms as concessions. Okay so what's happening here is the defendants argued hey we have features of the plan that protected shareholders and. You know and we were increased the market cap by a hundred billion dollars more. So the judge saying the holding period was adopted in part to increase the discount on the publicly disclosed grant price. So the M&A adjustment was industry standard and the twelve trans structure was reached in an effort to translate musks fully diluted share proposal to the boards preferred total outstanding shares metric is not accurate to refer to these terms as concessions. Well if it's what the board wanted instead of what musk wanted then musk is making a concession to the board the board is doing something Elon didn't want. Oh I guess what he's saying is it doesn't change the outcome it just changes how it was measured. I don't know we'll see if we'll see if he gets into that later he probably will. Is this visible sorry. I think I pushed this. Okay. Okay so.
这里发生的是，被告辩称我们计划中有保护股东的特点，而且我们可以增加市值1000亿美元。所以法官认为，持有期是部分采用的，以增加公开披露的授予价格折扣。所以并购调整是行业标准，而12次转让结构是为了将马斯克的全面摊薄股份提案转化为董事会首选的总流通股指标，不能准确地将这些术语称为让步。好吧，如果这正是董事会想要的，而不是马斯克想要的，那么马斯克对董事会做出了让步，董事会正在做一些马斯克不想要的事情。哦，我猜他的意思是这不会改变结果，只是改变了测量方式。我不知道，我们等一下看他是否会提到这个问题，他可能会的。对不起，这个可见吗？我想我按到了这个。好的。好的，所以。
The defendants also point to the duration of the process nine months the number of board and committee meetings tennis evidence the process would third and extensive. You lied the lack of substantive work time spent only matters when well spent most of the work on the compensation plan occurred during small segments of those nine months and under significant time pressure imposed by musk. Musk dictated the timing of the process making last minute changes to the timeline or altering substantive terms immediately prior to six out of the ten border compensation committee meetings during which the plan was discussed okay so this is where you get to did Elon control the process. Elon dictated the timing last minute changes the timeline I don't know that the timing matters.
被告方还指出了诉讼程序的持续时间九个月、董事会和委员会会议的数量、证据的充分性，以及整个过程的第三方性和广泛性。你谎称缺乏实质性工作时间只有在有效利用时间时才重要。在这九个月中，大部分有关补偿计划的工作发生在很短的时间段内，并且在马斯克施加的巨大时间压力下进行。马斯克决定了程序的时间安排，在十次边境董事会薪酬委员会会议的讨论中，他在最后一刻对时间表进行了更改，或者在讨论核心条款之前进行了修改。所以这就是你要找到的，埃隆是否控制了整个程序。埃隆决定了时间安排，做出了最后一刻的时间调整，我不知道时间是否重要。
Altering the substantive terms immediately prior to six out of ten border compensation committee meetings during which the plan was discussed and that is just the process the price was no better so here's where we get to the really big meat of the thing. In defense of the historically unprecedented compensation plan defendants earned the court to compare what Tesla gave against what Tesla got. The structure set up defendants arguments that the compensation plan was all upside for the stockholders. The board's primary objective with the compensation plan was to position Tesla to achieve transformative growth and Tesla accomplish this by securing musk's continued leadership offered musk an opportunity increases Tesla ownership by about 6% from about 21.9 to about 28% most 28.3 if and only if he increased Tesla's market cap from Foxley 50 billion to 650 billion while also hidden the operational milestones right this is the details of the trans.
在这十次关于边界补偿委员会讨论计划的会议前，立即改变实质条款，这正是价格没有提升的过程。为了为历史上前所未有的补偿计划辩护，被告要求法庭比较特斯拉给予的与特斯拉所获得的。所设立的架构证明了对股东而言，补偿计划完全是利好。董事会制定补偿计划的主要目标是使特斯拉实现转型性的增长，并通过确保马斯克继续领导提供了增加特斯拉持股比例的机会，从约21.9%增加到约28%，最高28.3%，前提是他将特斯拉的市值从500亿美元增加到6500亿美元，并达到了运营里程碑。这就是转型计划的细节。
You raise the market cap and these steps 12 steps and you have these milestones revenue and a bit done. According to the defense the deal was 6% for 600 billion dollars of growth in stockholder value at a high level the 6% for 600 billion argument has a lot of appeal yes it does as a shareholder who watched the write up. This was good but that appeal quickly phase when one remembers that must own 21.9% of Tesla when the board approved this compensation plan gave him every incentive to push Tesla to levels of transformative growth okay so what he's arguing here this line.
你提高了市值，这12个步骤，你有了这些里程碑性的收入和一些成果。根据辩护，交易为6%的增长带来了6000亿美元的股东价值，从高层来看，6%的增长带来6000亿美元的论点非常有吸引力，作为一个关注这个增值的股东，这很好，但是这种吸引力很快就消失了，当人们记起他必须拥有21.9%的特斯拉股份时，当董事会批准了这个薪酬计划时，他会被激励推动特斯拉实现变革性增长。所以他在这句话中主张的是什么。
Okay this to me shows a bias. Okay that that musk's existing ownership stake already gave him adequate incentive. This is this is underlying what he's saying right here because Elon already owned 22% of Tesla at the time. He had every incentive already so he didn't what he's basically saying is Elon did not need to be incentivized any more than he already was. He stood the gain over 10 billion dollars for every 50 billion dollars a market cap increase had no intention of leaving Tesla and he made that clear at the outside of the process throughout this litigation. Moreover the compensation plan was not commissioned on must devote any set amount of time to Tesla because the board never proposed such a term swept up by the rhetoric of all upside or perhaps starry I by Musk superstar appeal the board never asked the 55.8 billion dollar question. Was the plan even necessary for test that retain must can achieve its goals.
这对我来说显露出了偏见。埃隆·马斯克已经拥有了足够的激励，这是他在这里所强调的，因为埃隆在那个时候已经拥有了特斯拉22%的股份。他已经有了足够的动力，所以他基本上是在说埃隆不需要比他已经有的更多的激励。他可以从每增加500亿市值中获得100亿美元的收益，他并没有离开特斯拉的意图，并在整个诉讼过程中表明了这一点。此外，董事会从未提议过计划中要求马斯克给予特斯拉足够的时间，因为董事会从未提出这样的要求。董事会被马斯克的超高增长潜力或者说是他作为超级明星的吸引力所迷惑，从未问过这个价值558亿美元的问题：特斯拉是否需要这个计划来保留马斯克并实现其目标。
Okay so so far I haven't seen and I don't know whether Tesla argued this. The plan was arguably zero value when it was proposed. Like what was market cap the market cap was somewhere around 40 billion dollars when the plan was proposed or 50 billion dollars when the plan was proposed. And all the Wall Street experts said this is worthless because Tesla's not going to grow. Tesla can't do this Tesla's going to fail. I think this is before the the model three ramp. I don't remember exactly when this happened. I think this is before the model three ramp and and you know Tesla nearly died. So you know and is he going to take into account the fact that must was sleeping on the goddamn factory floor. In order to keep Tesla alive and you know so so I see I see a critical detail here. The judge deciding Elon already had enough incentive with Tesla because he owns so much of the stock. I don't know what else is going on that that seems dubious to me.
好的，到目前为止，我还没有看到也不知道特斯拉是否辩论过这个问题。当这个计划提出时，这个计划的价值可以说是零。就像当计划提出时，特斯拉的市值大约在400亿美元左右，或者在500亿美元左右。所有的华尔街专家都说这是一无所值的，因为特斯拉不会增长，特斯拉无法实现这个计划，特斯拉注定要失败。我记得这是在Model 3大规模生产之前。我不记得具体是什么时候发生的。我想这是在Model 3大规模生产之前，你知道，特斯拉几乎快要破产了。所以我看到了一个关键的细节。法官决定埃隆已经有足够的动力去经营特斯拉，因为他拥有那么多的股份。我不知道还发生了什么，这对我来说看起来有些可疑。
The question this question because because here's the thing if that Elon already has a large share of the company then to motivate him you need to give him a larger share of the company. Right what what else are you going to do and giving him 1% is not very motivating to guy or he is 22% so giving him 6% is a substantial motivation. This question looms large in the price analysis making each of defendants efforts to prove fair pricing trivial. Defendants prove it must was uniquely motivated by ambitious goals and the Tesla desperately needed must to succeed. But these facts do not justify the largest compensation he keeps hitting the largest compensation way. It's the largest compensation plan at the end after the stock grows and achieves the goals. I would argue it's the smallest compensation plan or it's an extremely small compensation plan when looked at what you should be looking at this from the beginning. Was this a large compensation plan when it was awarded. What's the expected value of the compensation like because he's getting no salary right. Defendants argued the milestones that must have meet to meet to receive equity under the package were ambitious and difficult to achieve but they failed to prove this point.
这个问题之所以存在，是因为亚伦公司的股份已经很大，如果要激励他，就需要给他更多的股份。对吧，还能做什么呢？给他1%的股份对他来说并不是很有动力，因为他本来就有22%的股份，给他6%的股份才是很有动力的。这个问题在价格分析中占据了很重要的位置，使得被告方努力证明公平定价变得微不足道。被告方证明亚伦公司必须具有雄心勃勃的目标，并且迫切需要成功，但这些事实并不能证明他得到的补偿是最高的。这是在股票增值和实现目标之后才有的最高的补偿计划。我会反驳说，从一开始就应该从最小的补偿计划或者极小的补偿计划来看待这个问题。当时授予他的补偿计划大吗？这个补偿的预期价值是多少，因为他没有拿工资。被告方辩称，must在接受这个计划下获得股权的里程碑是雄心勃勃且难以实现的，但他们未能证明这一点。
Okay now here I don't know what happened he claims that the lawyers were extremely talented and hard working and did a great job and then he claims they failed to prove. That the the milestones were ambitious and difficult to achieve. They failed to prove that the milestones were ambitious and if they didn't prove that the milestones were ambitious and difficult to achieve then they did a shitty job. Right so either they were great lawyers and they did a great job or they were shitty lawyers and they did a shitty job and if you're going to tell me they didn't prove that getting a $650 billion market cap.
好的，现在我不知道发生了什么事情，他声称律师们非常有才华并且努力工作，做得很出色，然后他声称他们未能证明。里程碑是雄心勃勃且难以实现的。他们未能证明这些里程碑是雄心勃勃的，如果他们未能证明这些里程碑是雄心勃勃且难以实现的，那他们的工作就糟糕透了。所以，要么他们是优秀的律师并且做得很好，要么他们是糟糕的律师并且做得很糟糕，如果你告诉我他们没有证明达到6500亿美元的市值，
And the revenue and the ABITDA. We're ambitious and difficult to achieve. I don't know I don't have the evidence I don't know what was proven in court. I don't think it's very hard to prove this was a really difficult thing to do. I think everyone knew when the pay plan was approved. Wow this is gonna be really hard. I think we all knew that.
而且还有收入和企业税前利润 (ABITDA)。我们有雄心壮志，但难以实现。我不知道，我没有证据，我不知道法庭上已经被证明了什么。我认为证明这是一件非常困难的事情并不是很难。我想每个人在薪酬计划得到批准时都知道这会非常困难。哇，这会非常难。我觉得我们都知道这一点。
And we know that in fact getting model three through without the company going bankrupt. Achieving those goals was paying extremely hard. Did they put in evidence that Elon slept on the factory floor. Maybe basically lived at Tesla for three years. Did they prove that. I don't know what they proved. I don't know what evidence was there.
我们知道，事实上，让Model 3顺利推出而不导致公司破产是非常艰难的。实现这些目标付出了巨大的努力。他们提供了Elon在工厂地板上睡觉的证据吗？也许他基本上在特斯拉生活了三年。他们证明了这一点吗？我不知道他们证明了什么。我不知道有什么证据存在。
Defendants made the plan maintain the plans and exceptional deal compared to private equity compensation plans. But they did not explain what anyone would compare a public companies compensation plan with a private equity compensation plan. Well, but you know when you say this is an outsized plan like well what other CEO already owns 22% of the company. Right what are you going to compare it to. Are you going to compare it to a company where the CEO owns point zero five percent of the company or point one percent of the company or one percent of the company. I don't know what he's comparing it to.
被告们制定了计划，旨在与私募股权补偿计划相比，维持计划并达成异常交易。但他们没有解释任何人会将上市公司的补偿计划与私募股权补偿计划进行比较。好吧，但是你知道，当你说这是一个超大规模的计划时，那么有哪位CEO已经拥有公司的22%呢？对，你要将其与什么进行比较呢？你要将其与一个CEO只拥有公司0.05%、0.1%或1%的公司进行比较吗？我不知道他在将其与什么进行比较。
Descendants and FISTIS did the plan worked and then it delivered to stockholders all that was promised but they made no effort to prove causation. Okay, again, don't tell me they're great lawyers if they didn't prove that. The causation you're telling me they didn't prove all the stuff that you're saying is necessary and then you're telling me the lawyer. What did he say didn't he say the lawyers were great lawyers. Oh wait there's this. There's this line he said. There's this line he said. I swear I saw some line where he said. Where is it. Where is it? I'm sorry, I'm trying to find it. I never him saying a line about the the defendant, if any set of attorneys could have achieved victory in these unlikely circumstances, it was the talented defense attorneys here but the task group tool.
后裔和FISTIS执行了计划，然后按照承诺将结果提交给股东，但他们没有努力证明因果关系。好的，再说一遍，如果他们没有证明这一点，不要告诉我他们是多么优秀的律师。你告诉我的因果关系，你所说的一切都是必要的，然后你告诉我这位律师。他说了什么，他没有说律师们是好律师吗？噢等一下，有这样的一句话，他说了这样一句话，我发誓我看到他说过一句话，它在哪里？它在哪里？对不起，我在努力找到它。我从来没有听到他说过一句关于被告的话，如果在这种不太可能的情况下有一群律师能够取得胜利，那将是这里才华横溢的辩护律师们，但是任务小组工具...
So you're telling me these were the great attorneys. If any set of attorneys could have achieved victory in these unlikely circumstances, it was these talented defense attorneys. These talented defense attorneys who didn't prove all this stuff you're saying was necessary to prove, that was easy to prove? All right, well, I'm gonna say these defense attorneys are either the defense attorneys aren't that talented or the judges for the crap. Okay, let's get back to where we were.
所以你告诉我这些律师是有声望的律师。如果有任何一组律师能够在这些不可能的情况下取得胜利，那就是这些才华横溢的辩护律师。这些才华横溢的辩护律师并没有证明你所说的所有必要证据，那些很容易证明的东西？好吧，那我要说这些辩护律师要么不够有才华，要么是那些法官的问题。好了，让我们回到我们原来的地方。
Okay, we're back to this private equity deal. They also made no effort to explain the rationale behind giving Musk 1% per tranche as opposed to some lesser portion of the increased value. None of these arguments add up to a fair price. So I don't see him yet in this discussion addressing what everybody else has been talking about, which is the plan had effectively zero value when it was approved because very few people, outside of true believers, most people believe the Tesla was never gonna accomplish the goals. So what's the actual value of the plan? And I don't know, did Tesla's lawyers explain that position to the judge? I thought there was expert testimony about the value of the plan at the time and I don't see the judge addressing that at all.
好的，我们回到这个私募股权交易的问题上了。他们也没有解释为什么给马斯克每份交易1％的股份，而不是增值的较少部分。所有这些论点都无法构成一个公平的价格。所以我还没有看到他在这次讨论中解决了其他人一直在谈论的问题，即当通过计划时，它实际上没有任何价值，因为除了真正的信徒之外，很少有人相信特斯拉能够实现这些目标。那么这个计划的实际价值是多少？我不知道，特斯拉的律师是否向法官解释了这个立场？我记得当时有关于计划价值的专家证词，而我没有看到法官对此进行任何处理。
Planiffs asked the court to rescind the compensation plan, must rescind plans to do deficiencies. This argument, although elegant and its simplicity is wrong, no legal authority for why rescission must automatically follow, generally a court of equity enjoys broad discretion and fashioning remedies for fiduciary breach and that general principle applies here. This, I had posted, I don't know, a week or so ago that I thought that judge was gonna overturn the pay plan because he was taking a long time and the hard part of taking a long time is fashioning remedies for fiduciary breach that he has to come up with a solution, with a remedy for the plan. He doesn't just say, I'm throwing out the plan, he has to now come up with an answer to what do we do about it? All the rescission does not automatically resolve from the disclosure deficiencies, it is necessarily and never less an available remedy. Refer to rescission as their preferable, but not exclusive remedy for breaches of fiduciary duty, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
原告要求法院撤销赔偿计划，必须撤销对不足之处的计划。尽管这种观点简洁优雅，但没有法律依据表明必须自动执行撤销，通常衡平法院拥有广泛的自由裁量权，可为受托人违反职责提供补救措施，并且此原则在这里也适用。我之前发过一篇帖子，大约一周左右前，我认为那位法官会推翻支付计划，因为他花了很长时间，而长时间的难点是制定受托人违约的补救措施，他必须想出一个解决方案，一个计划的补救措施。他不能只是说，“我驳回这个计划”，他现在必须提出一个解决方案，解决这个问题我们该怎么办？虽然撤销并不能自动解决信息披露上的不足，但它确实是一种可行的补救措施。他们称撤销为他们首选的，但并非唯一的违反职责的补救措施，等等。
Oh, he is granting rescission. Plan of offers no legal authority for why rescission must automatically follow an uninformed vote although it does not automatically resolve from disclosure deficiency does never less than available remedy. The Delaware Supreme Court has referred to rescission as, rescission is, I'm throwing out the plan. Okay, without an alternative. As the preferable, but not the exclusive remedy for breaches of fiduciary duty. When rescission, why am I warm? Come on. When rescission can restore the party's position, they occupy before the challenge transaction. Rescision then can achieve this result in that case, in this case where no 30-party interests are implicated and the entire compensation plants its unexercised and undisturbed. In these circumstances, the preferred remedy is the best one, the plaintiff is entitled to rescission. I mean, it sounds like plaintiff's lawyers weren't very good, didn't make the correct arguments and he ruled in favor of them anyway.
哦，他正在批准撤销。尽管撤销不会直接解决披露缺陷问题，但方案并未提供撤销必须自动跟随未经告知投票的合法依据。特拉华州最高法院曾称撤销为“我要废除这个方案”。好吧，没有其他替代方案的情况下，撤销是违反受托责任的首选，但不是唯一的救济方式。当撤销能够恢复当事方在有争议交易之前的地位时，它能够实现这一结果。在这种情况下，没有第三方权益受到影响，整个补偿计划保持未实施和未被打扰。在这些情况下，最好的救济方式是撤销，原告有权获得撤销。我的意思是，听起来原告的律师并不太好，没有提出正确的论点，但法官还是对他们有利的判决。
Why am I warm? God damn it. I'm trying to get my air conditioning to work in a new space, I'm sorry. All right, I might get warm. Trial took place over five days. The record comprises 1,704 trial exhibits live testimony from nine fact and four expert witnesses, video test, money from three fact witnesses, deposition testimony from 23 fact and five expert witnesses and two, so there's a lot of stuff here. These are the facts of the court finds them after trial.
为什么我这么热？该死！我正努力让我的空调在新的空间里工作，很抱歉。好吧，我可能会变热。审判历时五天。记录包括了1,704份审判展品、来自九名事实证人和四名专家证人的现场证言、来自三名事实证人的视频证言、来自23名事实证人和五名专家证人的口头证言和两份报告，所以这里有很多内容。这些是法庭在审判后得出的事实。
Okay, I'm gonna skip over details of what he finds about Tesla. I'm gonna skip over the master plan, we know that. Oh, this is important, the master plan was bold, although it might seem difficult to believe now, back then the market for electric vehicles was unproven. No, it's not difficult to believe that now. We all understood that.
好的，我会略过他对特斯拉所发现的细节。我会跳过那个招法，我们都知道。哦，这很重要，那个招法是大胆的，虽然现在可能很难相信，当时的电动车市场还没有证明。不，现在我们都不难相信。我们都明白这一点。
Electric vehicle technology was described as impossible. Even traditional automotive start has faced an incredibly challenging environment in which many failed. In fact, no new domestic car company since Chrysler in the 1920s had achieved financial success. Given the risks, Musk himself knew the probability of Tesla completing the master plan is extremely unlikely. And as far as I know, they actually haven't completed the master plan. What? I don't know how to get this air conditioning working, I'm gonna die here. To even Musk's surprise, the master plan came to fruition. So I think this is the early master plan, getting us to a point where we do this new pay plan. So master plan part do reach the final phase of the master plan must be gone and contemplate the next phase of Tesla's development. Die in here. Oh, livestream, could you have made the decision the day after I moved into my new space instead of the day I moved into my new space, published a new strategic document master plan part do unveiled a long range compact sedan called the model three. So we know about model three. No one thought Tesla could mass produce the model three. Musk stated in part do the number of American car companies that haven't gone bankrupt is a total of two Ford and Tesla. Tesla had come close to bankruptcy in its early years. And as of March 2017, approximately 20% of Tesla's total outstanding shares were sold short, making it the most shorted company in the US capital markets the time everyone was betting against Tesla and the man at its home.
电动汽车技术被描述为不可能的。即便是传统的汽车起步也面临着非常具有挑战性的环境，许多公司都以失败告终。事实上，自20世纪20年代的克莱斯勒以来，没有一家新的国内汽车公司能够取得经济成功。鉴于风险，马斯克本人也知道特斯拉完成这个总体计划的概率极小。据我所知，他们实际上还没有完成这个总体计划。什么？我不知道如何让这空调工作起来，我要在这里死了。即便对马斯克自己来说，总体计划的实现也令他惊讶。所以我觉得这是早期的总体计划，让我们达到一个能够实施这一新的薪酬计划的程度。所以总体计划第二部分完成后，必须着手考虑特斯拉发展的下一个阶段。在这里死了。哦，直播，你能不能在我搬进新空间的第二天做出决定，而不是在我搬进新空间的那天发表了一份新的战略文件总体计划第二部分，公布了一款名为Model 3的长续航紧凑型轿车。所以我们对Model 3有所了解。没有人认为特斯拉能够大规模生产Model 3。马斯克在总体计划第二部分中说过，没有破产的美国汽车公司总共只有两家，即福特和特斯拉。特斯拉在早年险些破产。截至2017年3月，特斯拉大约20%的流通股份被做空，使其成为美国资本市场中被做空最多的公司，每个人都在押注特斯拉会失败。
Okay, so we're getting through some history here, talking about Elon. Prior to the challenge transaction must receive two compensation plans one in 2009, one in 2012, both were equity linked. The first included a performance based component, the second was entirely performance based. He goes through the history of the two plans. The previous plan 10 tranches, each offering operations representing 0.5% of Tesla's outstanding common stock would have to achieve both a market cap milestone and an operational milestone. Each trench required must increase Tesla's market. So I know there's the previous compensation plan was very similar in the sense that you get this much stock. You have to achieve these market cap milestones and operational milestones market cap and and then there were targets like producing launching model X model three aggregate production. So by the end of 2016, Tesla had achieved seven of the market cap milestones and five of the operational milestones with another four operational milestones considered probable by March 2017, seven of the 10 tranches had vested from the board's perspective, the 2012 grant was successful. Yes, in only five years, Tesla's market crap grew by over 15 X from 3.2 billion to 53 billion. Yes. So this approach to compensating Elon was working. Tesla saw significant operational growth as well. In the end, the value of Musk's holdings increased from approximately 981 million to 13 billion, meaning that Musk ultimately received approximately 52 X, the 2012 grant date fair value. This is gonna be an important question. What's the grant date fair value of the plan that Elon received? Not what did he ultimately receive, 52 X, the grant date fair value? To me, the question is, what was the grant date fair value? What was he awarded when the plan was written and approved? Not what did he end up getting when the plan was followed through?
好的，所以我们正在讲述一些有关埃隆的历史，事先在挑战交易之前必须获得两份补偿计划，分别是2009年和2012年的，两者都与股权挂钩。第一个包括一个基于绩效的组成部分，第二个完全基于绩效。他解释了这两个计划的历史。上一个计划有10个分期，每个分期代表特斯拉未偿还普通股的0.5%，必须实现市值里程碑和运营里程碑。每个分期都要求特斯拉的市值增加。因此我知道，以前的补偿计划在某种意义上非常相似，你会得到这么多股票。你必须实现这些市值里程碑和运营里程碑，市值，然后还有一些目标，如生产发布X型号和3型号的累计生产。截至2016年底，特斯拉已经实现了7个市值里程碑和5个运营里程碑，到2017年3月，另外4个运营里程碑被认为是可能实现的，10个分期中的7个已经行权。从董事会的角度看，2012年的授予是成功的。是的，在仅仅5年的时间里，特斯拉的市值增长了15倍，从32亿美元增长到530亿美元。是的，这种补偿埃隆的方式是有效的。特斯拉的运营增长也非常显著。最终，马斯克拥有的股份价值从大约9.81亿美元增加到130亿美元，这意味着马斯克最终获得的是2012年授予日公平价值的52倍。这将是一个重要的问题。埃隆获得的计划的授予日公平价值是多少？不是他最终获得了多少，52倍的授予日公平价值？对我来说，问题是，在计划编写和批准时，他获得了什么奖励？而不是计划实施后他最终得到了什么。
2017 already nearing completion of the 2012, let me just see. Okay. Prompted a discussion that led to the compensation plan at issue in this litigation by this time, Musk had accumulated 22% beneficial ownership. I think that's including options he hadn't exercised yet. I'm not sure if that's completely the right way of describing it, but I'll assume the judge is getting that right. Okay.
2017年已接近2012年的尾声，让我看看。好的。这次讨论引发了一场诉讼中涉及的补偿计划的讨论。到那时，马斯克已经积累了22％的受益所有权。我想其中包括他尚未行使的期权。我不确定这是否完全正确描述，但我会假设法官是正确的。好的。
At all relevant times, 9% board. Okay, so here's the decision makers he's describing who's on the board. Aaron Prizes founder and manager of the company founder and managing partner of DBL partners, venture firm invested. His Aaron Prizes and DBL have invested tens of millions of dollars in Musk controlled companies, tens of millions. I have friends who have more than that. I think Bruce Bernworth and Dave Lee have invested more than tens of millions of dollars in Musk controlled companies.
在所有相关的时期，9%的董事会。好的，所以这是他描述的决策者们，他们是董事会成员。Aaron Prizes是该公司的创始人和经理，也是DBL Partners的创始人兼管理合伙人，这是一家投资了许多资金的风险投资公司。Aaron Prizes和DBL在Musk控制的公司上投资了数千万美元。我有一些朋友投资在Musk控制的公司上的金额超过了几千万美元。我认为Bruce Bernworth和Dave Lee投资在Musk控制的公司上的金额更多。
Aaron Prizes had been a member of the board since 2007. He was granted options. He exercised less than the court and added over 200 million. Being a Tesla director had been a real benefit in fundraising for his funds. Aaron Prizes and the Musk brothers have known each other for over 15 years. Personal and professional relationship with the Musk brothers has had a significant influence on his professional career. Yeah, well, that's gonna be true. If anybody was a board member of Tesla, when the company grew that much, to argue that Aaron Prizes relationship with Musk was weighty in other ways.
Aaron Prizes自2007年起成为董事会成员。他被授予了期权。他行使的比例比法院少，并增加了超过2亿。作为特斯拉的董事，这对他的基金筹款来说真是个真正的好处。Aaron Prizes和马斯克兄弟认识了15年以上。与马斯克兄弟的个人和职业关系对他的职业生涯产生了重大影响。是的，对任何在特斯拉任职的董事会成员来说，当公司发展到那么大时，争论Aaron Prizes与马斯克的关系在其他方面起到了重要作用是真实的。
The plaintiff points to a July 2017 tweet in which Elon professed his love for Musk, but this change does not reveal the deep relationship that the plaintiff described. It was an irrelevant joke. Aaron Prizes is a close friend to Kimball. They had known each other since at least 1999. Aaron Prizes attempted Kimball's wedding in Spain. Also invested okay. So he's basically saying it's pretty clear sign that Aaron Prizes is too close to be an independent director. I'm not saying he is or he isn't too close to be an independent director. The judge seems to be saying he's not truly independent.
原告指出埃隆在2017年7月的一条推文中表白对马斯克的爱，但这个变化并没有揭示原告所描述的深入关系。那只是一个无关紧要的玩笑。亚伦·普赖兹是金博尔的亲密朋友，他们至少从1999年就认识对方。亚伦曾主持金博尔在西班牙的婚礼，也进行了投资。因此，他基本上在说亚伦·普赖兹过于亲近以至不能独立担任董事。我不是在说他是不是过于亲近以致不能独立担任董事。而法官似乎在表示他并非真正独立。
Musk joined the board, worked as an accountant, blah, blah, blah. No personal relationship with Musk or other members of the board is never invested in any of Musk's other businesses. Held assets, not including to earn about $2 million. Okay, so it sounds like he's leaving the boss as an independent director.
马斯克加入董事会，担任会计工作，等等。与马斯克或董事会其他成员没有个人关系，也从未投资过马斯克的任何其他企业。持有资产，不包括赚取约200万美元。所以，听起来他将作为独立董事离开。
Denholm, no personal relation, Musk outside her service on the board. The vast majority of her wealth from her compensation as a Tesla director. Is that true? I thought Denholm was successful. See, he doesn't say, wait, he doesn't say what Denholm did before she joined the compensation committee. Her background is in accounting and telecommunications. Wasn't she like CEO? I thought she had a high level executive position in a telecoms company. Denholm ultimately received $280 million through sales of some of the options, described as transaction as life changing, received approximately $3 million per year in her non-Tesla position. Even assuming Denholm valued her Tesla compensation at a fraction of its blackfield value, her Tesla compensation far exceeded the compensation she received from other sources. So blackfield's value is the value of the options at the time they were awarded, I think. Blackfield's is a Nobel Prize-winning economics view of options. Sorry, I did go to Stanford Business School for three years. And I did major in mathematical economic analysis and I did study some finance along the way.
丹霍姆和马斯克没有任何私人关系，除了在董事会任职之外。她的绝大部分财富来自作为特斯拉董事的报酬。这是真的吗？我以为丹霍姆很成功。等等，他并没有说，他没有说丹霍姆在加入报酬委员会之前做过什么。她的背景是会计和电信。她不是担任过某个电信公司的高级职位吗？最终，丹霍姆通过出售一些期权获得了2.8亿美元的收入，该交易被称为生活中的转折点，并且在她非特斯拉职位上每年获得大约300万美元。即使假设丹霍姆把特斯拉的报酬价值看作是黑田利德价值的一小部分，她从特斯拉获得的报酬远远超过她从其他来源获得的报酬。所谓的黑田利德价值是指期权被授予时的价值，我想。黑田利德是一个获得诺贝尔经济学奖的期权经济学观点。抱歉，我确实在斯坦福商学院学习过三年。我主修数学经济分析，并在学习过程中研究了一些金融。
Grazias joined the board in 2000 said, blackfield's is something that MBAs learn about but they don't really understand. BHD students sort of understand it but we probably don't really either. Grazias joined the board in 2007, the compensation committee in 2009. Okay, Grazias, I think he's gonna argue that Grazias is too close to Elon. Managed valor actor or partners, the operation Tesla, actively assisted managing, trying to drive sales. Grazias says that has a mass dynastic or generation wealth from investing in Musk's companies, invested in PayPal in the 90s, began investing in Tesla in Musk's innovation. By the 2017, Grazias was the third largest individual investor in Tesla. Well, that means he's aligned, yeah, he's friends with Elon but he's also aligned with Tesla shareholders, right? All of his Tesla shares held in trust for his children that Tesla stock was worth approximately a billion dollars. Valor and Grazias have invested hundreds of billions of millions of dollars in SpaceX, SolarCity, the boring company on Neuralink, all of which significantly increased in value. All told, Grazias has funded and added billions of dollars by investing in Musk's companies, many of which were made only with Musk's personal invitation. Grazias has touted endorsements from Musk and marketing his own fund. I'm just gonna point out here that yeah, he's tied to Elon, but if he has a billion dollars worth of Tesla stock, doesn't he have the interest of the shareholders in mind?
Grazias在2000年加入了董事会，他表示，黑色领域是MBA学生所学习的内容，但他们并不真正理解。BHD学生可能也有点了解，但我们可能也不太了解。Grazias在2007年加入了董事会，2009年加入了薪酬委员会。好吧，Grazias，我觉得他会争辩说Grazias与Elon关系过于密切。作为他的合作伙伴，Grazias积极帮助管理和推动特斯拉的销售。Grazias表示，他通过投资Musk的公司获得了大量的世袭财富，他在90年代投资了PayPal，并开始投资特斯拉的创新。到2017年，Grazias成为特斯拉第三大个人投资者。这意味着他与Elon是朋友，但他也与特斯拉股东保持一致，对吧？他所有的特斯拉股票都以信托形式为他的孩子持有，价值约为十亿美元。Valor和Grazias已经投资了数百亿美元在SpaceX、SolarCity、The Boring Company和Neuralink，所有这些公司的价值都大幅增长。总而言之，Grazias通过投资Musk的公司已经注入了数十亿美元的资金，其中许多只是通过Musk的个人邀请才得以实现的。Grazias在宣传自己的基金时大力宣扬他与Musk的背书。我只是想指出，是的，他与Elon有关系，但如果他拥有价值十亿美元的特斯拉股票，他难道不是为股东的利益着想吗？
Um, Musk planned to invest in another valor fund in 2013, but he ultimately did not because Grazias was concerned about conflicting fiduciary duties.
嗯，马斯克计划在2013年投资另一个勇气基金，但最终未能实施，因为格拉齐亚斯担心会存在冲突的受托责任。
这句话的意思是，马斯克原计划在2013年投资一家新的勇气基金，但由于格拉齐亚斯担心他可能存在对不同受托职责的冲突，所以最终没有进行投资。
Okay, Grazias and Musk are close friends. Grazias wants personal loan and million dollars to Musk could not recall he charged interest. They meet outside of work as frequently as once a month, spent 90 each other's homes. Okay, this is clearly documenting that Grazias relationship with Musk is too close to being an independent board member. The judge is probably correct about that that Grazias is not fully independent.
好的，格拉茨和马斯克是亲密的朋友。格拉茨想要一笔个人贷款，一百万美元，而马斯克无法回忆起自己是否收取了利息。他们的工作关系之外，他们经常见面，每月至少一次，他们还经常互相在彼此家中呆上90分钟。好的，这明显表明格拉茨与马斯克的关系过于亲近，以至于不能算是一个独立的董事会成员。法官的观点可能是正确的，格拉茨并不完全独立。
Other directors, Murdoch, professional background of media entertainment, he's probably gonna find that Murdoch, Murdoch attended Kimball's wedding, owned 10,000 shares to the family trust, bought these shares in the market before. Anyone who approached him to become a director now runs a private investment company which invested approximately 50 million in SpaceX. Unclear whether he's going with Murdoch as independent or not. I think he's gonna, I think it's pretty clear Murdoch is independent.
其他导演，例如默多克，拥有媒体娱乐的专业背景，他可能会发现默多克参加了金博尔的婚礼，并且拥有该家庭信托基金的1万股股份，之前是在市场上购买的。任何接近他成为导演的人现在都在经营一家私人投资公司，该公司在SpaceX上投资了大约5000万美元。不清楚他是以独立身份还是和默多克一起行动。我认为他是以独立身份行动的，这一点相当明确。
Murdoch is absurdly wealthy outside of Tesla.
在特斯拉以外，默多克的财富非常惊人。
Johnson Rice joined on Grazias recommendations. She and Grazias were friends, ran in same social circles. Soul and player before and during her time at Tesla's a family business, Johnson Publishing Company, which published the magazine's Ebony and Jet. Those are prominent magazines. Served in other boards, received Tesla options as compensation for the director they expired without being exercised.
约翰逊·赖斯是在格拉齐娅的推荐下加入的。她和格拉齐娅是朋友，活动圈子相同。在特斯拉期间，约翰逊是一个家族企业——约翰逊出版公司的魂灵与球员，该公司出版了杂志《Ebony》和《Jet》，这两本杂志很有影响力。她还在其他董事会中任职，并作为董事收到了特斯拉的期权作为补偿，但这些期权到期后未被行使。
Okay, so we've moved past the directors and now Musk proposes the terms of a compensation plan. First mentioned in the record, it's really hard to control this air conditioning, God damn it.
好的，所以我们已经跳过了董事部，现在马斯克提出了一份补偿计划的条款。在记录中首次提到，这个空调真他妈的难控制。
Text from Aaron Price to Musk one day after compensation he certified investing. Aaron Price asked Musk to discuss a few comp related issues they spoke by phone on April 9th.
亲爱的马斯克先生，
我是亚伦·普赖斯。昨天您确认了我们的投资补偿事宜后的第一天，我希望与您讨论一些相关问题。我们已经在4月9日通过电话进行了沟通。
谢谢。
亚伦·普赖斯
Testified he'd reach out to Musk as if he was ready to recommit and figure out what was his head in a place that he wanted to recommit over a longer duration to Tesla. Okay, so Aaron, and listen to that language. Is Elon ready to recommit to Tesla? Is your head in a place that he wanted to recommit over a longer duration Tesla? Hey, listen, we know you're staying with Tesla. How much money can we give you? Right? Are you willing to commit? Or do you want to stay with Tesla? Don't forget, Elon has SpaceX that he's got, you know, effort into, he may have other ventures. I don't remember when Neuralink and Boring Company started.
他证实他会联系马斯克，好像他准备重新承诺并弄清楚他在想什么，他希望长期投入到特斯拉中。好的，所以亚伦，听听他的措辞。埃隆准备重新承诺特斯拉吗？他对特斯拉有承诺的意愿吗？嘿，听着，我们知道你会留在特斯拉。我们能给你多少钱？对吗？你愿意承诺吗？还是你想留在特斯拉？别忘了，埃隆还有他投入努力的SpaceX，他可能还有其他事业。我不记得Neuralink和Boring Company是什么时候开始的了。
Musk put forward terms of a new compensation plan during the call. He envisioned a purely performance based compensation plan structured like the 2012 grant, but with more challenging market cap milestones and proposed 15 milestones of $50 billion in market capitalization total possible award of 15% of Tesla's outstanding shares. To put Musk's proposal in perspective, each market cap milestone increase of $50 billion required Tesla to grow in size roughly equal to the market caps of each of Tesla, Ford and GM as of early 2007, 18. So Tesla would have to grow an amount of market cap equal to that of the most significant domestic car manufacturers to Musk earn to earn a single transfer compensation must be in this proposal is really crazy.
马斯克在电话中提出了一个新的报酬计划。他设想了一个纯粹基于绩效的报酬计划，类似于2012年的授予，但设置了更具挑战性的市值里程碑，并提议了15个市值总额为500亿美元的里程碑，可赋予特斯拉未流通股的15%的奖励。为了让大家更好地理解马斯克的提议，每增加500亿美元的市值里程碑要求特斯拉增长的规模大致相当于2007年初特斯拉、福特和通用汽车三家公司的市值总和。所以特斯拉必须增加与最重要的国内汽车制造商相当数量的市值，马斯克才能获得一次转让报酬，可以说这个提议真是疯狂。
Drafted a proxy statement would incentivize to management to grow Tesla most valuable companies in the world suggesting performance options blah, blah, blah, blah. Okay, wait, what's in the footnote here? Footnotes are sometimes important.
起草了一份股东代理声明，以激励管理层使特斯拉成为全球最有价值的企业，建议提供绩效选择之类的内容。好的，等一下，脚注中写了什么？有时脚注很重要。
Okay, so there's some quote here. I'm not sure who this is from. You know, with the 2012 ban, everybody liked basically, we started off saying we got to double down, double the market cap for you to get anything. Well, now the market cap had grown to 50 billion. It was up to 59 billion by the time they actually proved the plan, but this idea, 50 billion, that's a nice round number. I think at the end of 2017, Ford was worth about 49 billion. I think GM was worth about 58 billion. Every time we'll get another Ford or GM, I think that just kind of resonated. And then down here, I mean those market cap goals, you know, were totally insane. I mean, you literally had to create a Ford GM or FedEx every 10 months, every 10 months and maintain it, right? So okay, wow, that's pretty nuts. So the board members felt at the time, and Elon felt at the time that this plan was insane in terms of the amount that would have to be awarded.
好的，这里有一个引用语。我不确定这是谁说的。你知道，2012年的禁令之后，大家基本上都喜欢，我们开始说我们必须加倍增加市值才能得到任何东西。嗯，现在市值已经增长到500亿了。到他们实际批准计划时，市值已经达到了590亿，但这个想法，500亿，那是一个很好的圆数。我想在2017年底，福特的市值大约值490亿。我想通用汽车的市值大约值580亿。每次我们再赚到一个福特或通用汽车的市值，我觉得这个想法就会引发共鸣。然后在这里，我是说那些市值目标，你知道，完全是疯狂的。我是说，你真的必须每10个月就创造出一个福特、通用汽车或者联邦快递，并且保持住，对吧？嗯，哇，这真的是疯狂。所以当时董事会成员和埃隆都觉得这个计划在授予金额上是疯狂的。
Mr. Musk indicated that an award structure would align his incentives with those of stockholders and incentivize him to continually the management of the company over the long term.
马斯克先生表示，奖励结构将使他的激励与股东的一致，并激励他在长期内持续管理公司。
Draft proxy statement is the most reliable, only evidence of the substance of the April 9 discussion, neither took contemporaneous notes or otherwise memorialized.
草案代理声明是4月9日讨论内容的最可靠、唯一的证据，没有记录当时的笔记或做出其他形式的备忘。
It is unclear who prepared the draft proxy statement, but Marin was responsible for it. He spoke to Aaron Price within hours of the call and reviewed the draft.
尽管起草委任代理声明的人并不明确，但该任务由马林负责。他在通话结束几小时内与亚伦·普莱斯交谈，并审查了该份草案。
Marin was totally beholden to Musk letting credibility, the accuracy of the draft proxy statement. Should be noted, he was just divorced. People don't always like their divorce attorney, just to be clear. Usually, I would say three quarters of, half people hate their divorce, the winner lose. Like if you win, if you lose, you hate your divorce lawyer. If you win, you might not hate your divorce lawyer, but you paid him a lot of money.
Marin完全依赖Musk的信誉，以及草案委托声明的准确性。值得注意的是，他刚刚离婚。人们并不总是喜欢自己的离婚律师，这一点需要明确。通常情况下，我会说四分之三的人不喜欢他们的离婚律师，不论胜败如何。如果你胜诉了，你可能不会讨厌你的离婚律师，但你付了他很多钱。
Marin neither socializes Musk nor considered himself a friend of Musk when he worked at Tesla, but he owed his career and who had a genuine affection for Musk.
当马林在特斯拉工作时，他既不交际马斯克，也不认为自己是马斯克的朋友，但他为马斯克欠了他的事业，并且对马斯克怀有真挚的感情。
Held back to his when asked about his departure from Tesla, this crime is the most difficult decision he made to date. So that's not his, that shows he loves Tesla. That doesn't necessarily say he, you can interpret that both ways. So what?
当被问及他离开特斯拉的原因时，他对此事的态度保持了保留。这是他迄今为止做出的最困难的决定。这表明他对特斯拉充满了爱。这并不一定说明他……你可以按两种方式解释。那又怎样呢？
People leaving their jobs are often emotional about it. You're leaving a generation, a company that's massively changing the world.
离职的人往往对此感到情绪激动。你正在离开一个成就非凡、正在极大改变世界的一代人及一家公司。
After speaking to Aaron Price on April 9, Marin enlisted other Tesla employees to help model Musk proposal. All to 13 in-house Tesla executives worked on the grant. The key executive in addition to Marin was Ahuja, Tesla's CFO. Ahuja recommended one substantive change to the structure of pairing the market cap milestones with operational milestones, recommended this change for accounting purposes, relayed the change to Aaron Price, a question whether milestones were necessary. Marin explained important accounting reasons for having operational milestones.
在4月9日与艾伦·普赖斯交谈后，马林招募了其他特斯拉员工来帮助建立马斯克的提案。共有13位特斯拉公司内部高管参与了这项计划。除马林之外，另一个关键的高管是特斯拉的首席财务官阿胡贾。阿胡贾建议在市值里程碑和运营里程碑的结构上进行一个实质性的变化，并出于会计目的而建议了这个变化，并将变化传达给了艾伦·普赖斯，并质疑里程碑是否有必要。马林解释了为什么有必要设立运营里程碑的重要会计原因。
It began to, okay, so again, now the CFO chips and says we need to change the plan from what Elon wanted and Elon went along with it. And those are pretty substantial changes. And we see this by the way with lucid motors. Lucid motors didn't require significant operational milestones for Peter Rawens to get like $300 million. I wonder if any shareholders are gonna sue Lucid over Rawlinson's compensation plan. There's an interesting question.
所以，开始的时候，首席财务官介入并表示我们需要改变埃隆的计划，而埃隆则同意了这个决定。这些变化相当重大。我们可以从Lucid Motors的例子中看到这一点。Lucid Motors并没有要求Peter Rawens实现重要的运营里程碑才能获得3亿美元。（我在想）是否有股东会因Rawlinson的薪酬计划而对Lucid提起诉讼呢？这是一个有趣的问题。
So I don't know that the judge is politically motivated. I'm not seeing, I don't know that I would see political motivation in this. I don't know that political motivation matters.
所以我并不知道法官是否存在政治动机。我没有看到，也不知道我是否会看到其中的政治动机。我不知道政治动机是否重要。
I mean, here's the, we haven't gotten to the critical question yet. What was the value of the plan when it was awarded? Because there's a lot of evidence here that I'm seeing. The judge is saying that the evidence isn't there. I'm seeing a lot of evidence that this plan was unlikely to succeed.
我的意思是，现在还没有涉及到关键问题。当这个计划被批准时，它的价值是多少？因为我看到了很多证据。法官说没有证据，但我看到了很多证据表明这个计划不太可能成功。
So the value of the plan would be very low at the time it's awarded. Musk states that he's committed to test the for life. Little progress was made on much new compensation plan. An analyst asked about news view of staying actively in place with Tesla long in the future. Musk responded he should not be CEO forever. He further indicated he was gonna reevaluate his position after Tesla received achieved volume production to Model 3. The plan of argues that Musk's statement about not being CEO was intended to professor Tesla and negotiations over Musk's compensation plan. But the, but the record does not support that conclusion.
所以在授予时，该计划的价值将非常低。马斯克表示他致力于终身测试该计划。在许多新的补偿计划上没有取得多少进展。一位分析师询问了关于在未来长期与特斯拉保持活跃的计划。马斯克回应他不应永远担任首席执行官。他进一步表示，在特斯拉实现Model 3大规模生产后，他将重新评估自己的职位。该计划认为马斯克关于不担任首席执行官的声明旨在向特斯拉和马斯克的补偿计划进行谈判。但是，记录并不支持这个结论。
Musk clarified a statement later in the May 3 earnings call saying, well, maybe I wasn't clear. I intend to be actively involved with Tesla for the rest of my life. Hopefully stopping before I get too old or too crazy. I don't know. But essentially for as long as I can positively contribute to Tesla and tend to be to have a significant involvement with Tesla.
马斯克在5月3日的盈利电话会议中澄清了一份声明，他说，嗯，也许我表达不够清楚。我打算一生都积极参与特斯拉的工作。希望在变得太老或太疯狂之前停下来。我不知道。但基本上，在我可以积极为特斯拉做出贡献并与其有着重要参与的时间里，我会一直保持与特斯拉的密切关系。
That doesn't mean he intends to be CEO. Stating unequivocally, he would have remained at Tesla even if Stockwald is a rejected new compensation plan because he was heavily invested in Tesla both financially, emotionally, and viewed Tesla as part of his family. Trial witnesses similarly testified he never heard Musk say he didn't plan to quit Tesla.
这并不意味着他打算成为首席执行官。毫不含糊地说，即使斯托克瓦尔德被拒绝了新的薪酬计划，他也会继续留在特斯拉，因为他在特斯拉投入了大量的财力和精力，并且将特斯拉视为自己的家庭的一部分。在审判中，证人也证实他从未听到马斯克说他没有计划离开特斯拉。
For operating that fact, is any lack of succession plans during the relevant period that is before 2021, neither Musk nor Tesla had identified a potential successor for the role of Tesla CEO. The first and forgettable board discussion. Okay, so throwing in forgettable here is the judge tipping his hand that he has a strong opinion about this board discussion.
在此之前，也就是2021年之前的相关时间段内，尽管马斯克和特斯拉都没有为特斯拉首席执行官一职确定潜在继任者，但这一事实的运作中存在一些缺乏继任计划。首次且不容忽视的董事会讨论。通过在这里使用“不容忽视”，法官透露了他对这次董事会讨论持强烈意见。
By June 2017 had met all 10 market cap milestones for the 2012 grant, only three trenches left to achieve. Board discussed the prospect of a new compensation plan Musk chaired the meeting. The conversation was brief and apparently forgettable.
到2017年6月，公司已经达到了2012年授予的10个市值里程碑，并只剩下三个未达成。董事会讨论了新的薪酬计划的前景，马斯克主持了会议。这次对话很简短，似乎被人忘记了。
During that meeting, Aaron Price updated the board, stated plans were underway to design the next compensation program. Minutes of that meeting are three pages long in the discussion of a new constant place compensation plan.
在那次会议上，亚伦·普赖斯向董事会更新了情况，并表示计划正在进行中以设计下一个薪酬计划。会议纪要共有三页，其中详细讨论了一个新的持续场所薪酬计划。
So okay, so the first meeting, I think the point here is the judges as heading towards a conclusion that the board didn't discuss the plan enough. That's the reason for this inclusion is, okay, this discussion was not meaningful and therefore the board did not do significant evaluation. And then Denholm said she doesn't remember discussing it.
Now in June of 2017, we would like to discuss Elon's next stock rant, this sort of outreach from Marin was common during the process, although he was counseled to Tesla, he would reach out and prompt action by the compensation committee to benefit Musk. A few days prior, now keep my Marin is not on the board.
好的，第一次会议，我认为重点是法官们认为董事会没有充分讨论计划。这就是为什么会有这个论点，好吧，这次讨论没有意义，因此董事会没有进行重要的评估。然后丹霍姆说她记不得讨论过这个。现在在2017年6月，我们想讨论埃隆的下一次股票言论，这种马林的沟通在过程中是常见的，尽管他是特斯拉的顾问，但他会与薪酬委员会沟通并促使行动，以使马斯克受益。在之前的几天里，请记住马林不在董事会上。
Marin's team had prepared an aggressive timeline for approving a compensation plan, scheduled the compensation plan to prove the plan by July 17th or July 24th at the latest. The initial June 15 plan contemplated only two compensation committee meetings prior to final approval and in the law of committee, just over a month to do his job. A later June 26th version was even more rushed proposing only one compensation committee meeting. The timeline reflected a reckless approach to a fiduciary process given the compensation committee had not yet discussed any substantive terms nor met considering the grant. Despite the breakneck speed, contemplated by the timeline reported a council that Aaron Price was aligned on the plan in timing. Well, but Aaron Price had already, Aaron Price is the one who'd already discussed the plan. It was the rest of the board that wasn't aware of it.
Marin的团队为批准一项补偿计划制定了一个积极的时间表，计划最迟在7月17日或7月24日之前通过该计划。最初的6月15日计划仅考虑了在最终批准之前进行两次补偿委员会会议，在委员会的规定下，只有一个多月的时间来完成工作。稍后的6月26日版本更加匆促，仅提议进行一次补偿委员会会议。时间表反映了对受托义务过程的鲁莽处理，因为补偿委员会尚未讨论任何实质性条款，也没有讨论授予的问题。尽管时间表所考虑的速度之快令人眼花缭乱，但据报道，亚伦·普莱斯在计划和时间上是一致的。嗯，但亚伦·普莱斯已经讨论过该计划。不知道的是董事会的其他成员。
After Musk asked to discuss this compensation plan, the team was supercharged, initial calls with five potential compensation consultants, selected three for Marin and Aaron Price to interview, the consultants were formed and Musk's initial proposal and the aggressive timeline.
在马斯克要求讨论这一薪酬计划后，团队变得充满活力，与五位潜在薪酬顾问进行了初步沟通，并选择了三位供Marin和Aaron Price面试，形成了薪酬顾问团队，并对马斯克的初始提议和紧迫时程进行了讨论。
Okay, the first compensation committee discussion discussed Musk's compensation plan on June 2017, June 23. No, the committee formally resolved to retain Wilson, Suncini and Compensi as legal advisor and compensation consultant. A few days later retained John Berg at Aeon Hewitt-Radford to value the 2018 grant in light of the market-based milestones and to advise on the accounting treatment of the 2018 grant in light of the performance-based milestones.
好的，第一次薪酬委员会会议于2017年6月23日讨论了马斯克的薪酬计划。委员会正式决定聘请威尔逊、桑西尼和康彼思尼作为法律顾问和薪酬顾问。几天后，还聘请了约翰·伯格在Aeon Hewitt-Radford评估了2018年的发放价值，考虑到市场基准，并就2018年的绩效目标做出了会计处理的建议。
During the meeting, Aaron Price stated that compensation committees aim is to create a new compensation plan similar to 2012 grant, set up goals for the compensation plan in broads groups. The meetings of the minute, the minutes of the meeting described that discussion is follows. The committee discussed how Musk had been and would likely remain a key driver of the company's success and its prospects for growth and that accordingly would be in Tesla's interest and the interest of its stockholders to structure a compensation package that would keep Mr. Musk as the company's fully engaged CEO.
在会议期间，亚伦·普莱斯表示薪酬委员会的目标是制定一个类似于2012年授予计划的新薪酬方案，并为薪酬方案设定广泛的目标。会议记录中描述了讨论的内容。委员会讨论了马斯克过去一直是公司成功及其增长前景的关键推动者，而且将来也有可能保持这个角色，因此，在特斯拉和股东的利益考虑下，应该设计一个薪酬计划，使马斯克继续担任公司全职首席执行官。
Unlike most other CEOs, Musk manages multiple successful large companies, discussed the importance of keeping Mr. Musk focused and deeply involved in the company's business and the corresponding need to formulate a compensation package that would best ensure Mr. Musk focuses as innovation strategy leadership on the company and its mission. This is an important detail. Elon runs SpaceX, which is now over a $150 billion company. He's got other companies that he runs. I assume at this point, I don't remember when Nurely and Boring Company started, but he started those companies. He has other interests. Yes, he's committed to Tesla, but he's got other things. It's not just whether he stays with Tesla. It's how much of his time he devotes to Tesla. It's whether he makes Tesla a priority or whether he makes other companies a greater priority.
与大多数其他首席执行官不同，马斯克管理多个成功的大型公司，并强调了保持马斯克先生专注和深度参与公司业务的重要性，以及相应的需要制定一个最能确保马斯克专注于公司及其使命的创新战略领导的薪酬方案。这是一个重要的细节。埃隆经营着SpaceX，这是一个市值超过1500亿美元的公司。他还经营着其他公司。我猜现在纽雷利公司和Boring公司已经开始了，但他创办了这些公司。他还有其他的兴趣。是的，他对特斯拉有责任感，但他还有其他事情要做。问题不仅在于他是否留在特斯拉，而是他将多少时间投入到特斯拉。问题在于他是否将特斯拉作为首要任务，还是将其他的公司放在更重要的位置上。
Committee was not presented with any proposed terms for compensation plan to not consider anyway. This was the case even though behind the scenes, Aaron Price and Musk had discussed in Musk's initial proposal, which Musk's team had already modeled. Yeah, but I think the consultants hadn't reviewed the plan yet. So what would be the point of presenting it to the compensation committee? Although the committee had no idea what the terms the plan might be, they were told to be prepared to approve it in July. Brown thought the timeline was on wise. Brown called Aaron Price to ask for more time to work on the matter. Aaron Price responded, this is the timeline we're working with. Marion's team would repeat that message. We're running up against a short down with, make sure this is moving, move it full tilt.
委员会没有提交任何提议的补偿计划条款，因此也无法考虑。尽管在幕后，艾伦·普赖斯和马斯克已经讨论了马斯克最初的提议，并且马斯克的团队已经进行了建模。是的，但我认为顾问们还没有审查这个计划。那么将其提交给补偿委员会有什么意义呢？尽管委员会不知道该计划可能的条款是什么，他们被告知准备在7月批准。布朗认为时间表不明智。布朗打电话给艾伦·普赖斯，要求给予更多时间来处理此事。艾伦·普赖斯回答说，这就是我们的时间表。马里昂的团队会重复这个信息。我们在时间上很紧迫，确保这个事情在全速进行。
Other than Brown, there's no evidence anyone questioned the timeline.
Aaron Price formed a working group. Marion two announced attorneys reported to him, Chang and Phillips, a Hoosha Brownberg and where attorneys from Wilson, Suncini. Aaron Price and Gracias were in the working group at the compensation committee decided that the two members with less extensive ties to Musk, Dan Homan, and bus were optional attendees. I thought that they weren't, I thought they were not.
除了布朗之外，没有任何证据表明有人对时间表提出质疑。阿伦·普莱斯成立了一个工作组。马里昂两位律师向他汇报，他们是张和菲利普斯，还有胡沙·布朗伯格和威尔逊、桑西尼的律师。阿伦·普莱斯和格拉西亚斯是工作组的成员，赔偿委员会决定两名与马斯克关系较少的成员丹·霍曼和巴斯是可选出席者。我认为他们不是，我认为他们不是。
Okay, the working group first met on June 30th. Phillips proposed the agenda. Brown prepared a slide deck with high level overview of the suggested terms. Few slides summary in the 2012 grant, a slide titled preliminary concept, reflecting the 15 tranche and three slides total titled key program terms, alternatives and considerations, which identified terms of the compensation plan on the title preliminary alternative and considerations relative to each relevant each term under the term titled. The presentation identified the following question for discussion. Will both operational and company evaluation goals be used? I'm just reading through here. The presentation was a vehicle for getting the compensation committee members up to speed in the work done behind the scenes prior to that time. Working with stood points to move forward, Chang emailed members of the group about developing operational milestones.
好的，工作小组首次会议于6月30日举行。菲利普斯提出了议程。布朗准备了一份高层次概述的幻灯片，其中包括对建议条款的简述。2012年拨款方案中有几张幻灯片的摘要，一张幻灯片上写着初步概念，反映了15个分组和三张题为“关键项目条款、备选方案和考虑事项”的幻灯片，其中确定了报酬计划的条款，这些条款与标题为初步备选方案和考虑事项相对应。演示文稿提出了以下讨论问题：是否同时使用运营和公司评估目标？我只是在这里浏览一下。这次演示文稿是使薪酬委员会成员了解幕后工作的一种手段。工作小组同意继续前进，张通过电子邮件向小组成员提到了制定运营里程碑的事宜。
Mark each market cap milestone would also require an increase of 15 billion in cap revenue. Past let's expect to achieve milestone roughly every once once every 12 to 15 months over the next three years.
Musk decelerates the process.
标记每个市值里程碑还需要增加150亿的市值收入。我们预计在接下来的三年内大约每12到15个月达到一个里程碑。马斯克减缓了这个过程。
Working group met again on July 6th, the day before the next compensation committee. After this meeting, Maron and Form chain were now going on a slower track with the CEO grant. We're now looking to issue it in August or September instead of within the next couple of weeks. So first he's saying that the committee was rushed. And now it's slowed down. It was way too complex to do what was originally described as a preliminary timeline but did not recall additional details.
工作组在7月6日再次开会，就在下个薪酬委员会之前的那一天。在这次会议之后，Maron和Form chain在授予首席执行官薪酬的过程中进展较慢。我们现在计划在8月或9月发放，而不是在接下来的几个星期内。所以他首先说委员会被赶得太急了，现在又放慢了进度。最初描述的初步时间表过于复杂，没有回忆起额外的细节。
The reality is that Maron answered to and spoke to warm us in this. So he's making a conclusion here that Maron, who's the attorney for Tesla, but also Elon's divorce attorney. And I can understand that doesn't seem very independent. That doesn't mean he's not a good attorney. And I'm not sure why a divorce attorney is in this role.
事实是，马龙回答并对我们进行了温情的教导。所以他在这里得出结论，马龙是特斯拉的律师，但也是埃隆的离婚律师。我可以理解这似乎不太独立。这并不意味着他不是一个好律师。我也不确定为什么一个离婚律师会担任这个角色。
Okay. Is he a good lawyer? Does he know Elon's attitude isn't, you know, Elon's attitude is this person good at his work, right? Does this person work hard? Does this person have exceptional ability? That's how Elon tends to decide these things. Who do I hire? Somebody who has exceptional ability.
好的。他是个优秀的律师吗？他知道埃隆的态度不是那样的，你知道，埃隆的态度是这个人的工作是否好，对吗？这个人是否努力工作？这个人是否有卓越的能力？这就是埃隆倾向于决定这些事情的方式。我应该雇佣谁呢？应该雇佣那些具备卓越能力的人。
If he felt that the divorce attorney had exceptional ability, he would put him in a different slot. And he's claiming that Maron answered to and spoke for Muskenness. And that's a statement. It was must go ask either ask to slow things down or stop pushing to get them done so quickly. This is a conclusion. I don't see where he says must this paragraph right here. Like I'm not saying he's wrong. All I'm saying is all of a sudden it was slowed down. It's unclear why the process was slowed down. It's unclear why the judge think it's bad that the process is slowed down. The judge seemed to be saying it was bad that the process was accelerated. So now the process is slowed down. He's claiming that Musk slowed the process down. And I don't see him making any reference to any evidence that Musk is the one who pushed it to slow down.
如果他认为离婚律师具有卓越的能力，他会给他一个不同的位置。他声称马龙对穆斯肯纳斯负责并代表他发言。这是一个陈述。这意味着一定要问，要么要求减速，要么停止推进进程的速度这一结论。我不明白他在这段文字中说了什么。我的意思不是说他错了。我只是说突然间一切都变慢了。为什么程序放慢了不清楚。法官为什么认为程序放慢是不好的不清楚。法官似乎在说程序加速是不好的。所以现在程序变慢了。他声称马斯克放慢了程序。我没有看到他提到任何证据表明是马斯克推动了放慢进程。
It's entirely possible the CEO said no, this is too big. Because the CEO was pushing the CFO, Ahuja, Deepak, I think his name is, you know, wanted these other milestones, operational milestones included. Maybe Deepak has the one who slowed it down. It was Musk who either asked to slow things down or stop pushing to get them done so quickly. Musk denied aspects of this finding, denying that he's pushing for the grant to happen quickly and stating he was generally airing on the side of glowing slowly, did not recall the exact reason why the process slowed down early July. But his recollection of relevance was generally.
这完全有可能，CEO说不行，这个项目太大了。因为CEO一直在向首席财务官阿霍贾施压，他想要包括其他运营里程碑在内的里程碑。也许是阿霍贾拖慢了进展。马斯克要么要求放慢进展，要么停止过快推进项目。马斯克否认了某些发现的方面，并否认他在追求快速获得拨款，表示他总体上倾向于缓慢推进，并不记得为什么进程在7月初放慢了。但他对相关事情的回忆是普遍存在的。
So the judge is concluding that Musk is controlling this when there's zero evidence. This is a spot where if you're looking for bias of the judge, this is a spot where you see bias of the judge. The judge is concluding that Elon is the one who's controlling the pace of the process with zero evidence that Musk controlled the pace of the process.
所以法官得出结论说马斯克在没有任何证据的情况下控制了整个过程。这是法官偏见的体现之一。法官得出结论说埃隆是那个在没有任何证据的情况下控制进程速度的人。
And I would say looking at this, Ahuja, Deepak, Ahuja, the CFO said, hey, we need operational milestones to make this sensible. We can't just do this on market cap alone. It's entirely conceivable that Deepak, the CFO said, hey, you're going too fast. You got to slow this down. It's entirely possible that Marin on his own said, you know, I'm looking at this. It's my legal conclusion that this is moving too fast. We need to slow this down. We don't know. And neither does the judge, apparently, and the judge forms an opinion.
我会说，看着这些，首席财务官Deepak Ahuja说，嘿，我们需要运营里程碑来使这个合理化。我们不能只凭市值来做这件事。完全有可能首席财务官Deepak说，嘿，你走得太快了。你必须放慢脚步。完全有可能Marin自己说，你知道的，我看着这个。我法律上认为这个进展得太快了。我们需要放慢脚步。我们不知道。法官似乎也不知道，而法官形成了一个观点。
So this, again, when you're looking, no, when I say bias, I don't mean political bias because apparently some people are saying this political bias. I'm saying, Hey, that they want you to use she because the judge is a woman. Oh, I'm sorry. The woman is sorry. I didn't know the woman, the judge is a woman. Kathleen McCormick.
所以，再说一次，当你在看的时候，不，我说的偏见并不是指政治偏见，因为显然有些人说这是政治偏见。我是说，嘿，他们希望你使用“她”一词，因为法官是个女人。哦，对不起。这个女人，我不知道法官是个女人，叫凯瑟琳·麦科密克。
Okay. My bias. I assume the judge was a man. I was wrong. But the fact is that the judge rules makes a decision that looks right right here must denied aspects of this finding. But where's the evidence? You must said that's not true. Where's the evidence that is this true? The judge is just pulling this out of the air. You know, all we have is we don't know why it was postponed. How do we, how do we know this is Elon? Maybe this is going to come up later. Maybe there's going to be evidence of this later, but I think this is an example of the judge being biased against Elon. I'm not saying there's a political bias. I'm saying the judge is biased.
好的，我的偏见。我假设法官是个男人。我错了。但事实是，法官的裁决看起来是正确的，但却否定了这一发现的某些方面。但证据在哪里呢？你必须承认这不是真的。这个事情有证据吗？法官只是凭空拿出来的。你知道，我们唯一知道的是我们不知道为什么推迟。我们怎么知道这是埃隆？也许这会在之后出现。也许以后会有这方面的证据，但我认为这是法官对埃隆的偏见的一个例子。我不是说有政治偏见，我是说法官有偏见。
The judge has decided that now this is one of the things my opinion about judges. Judges decide on a result. And then they some judges follow a process of saying what's the process I should follow to come to a decision. Some judges decide a result and then they figure out how do I get there. And this is an example of a judge saying, okay, I want to invalidate this pay plan. And here's a fact I need to find that's going to help me get there. I need to find that Elon controlled this process. So let me assume that Elon controlled the process here, even though I don't have any facts to support it. My opinion on what I'm reading from what the judge said.
法官已经决定现在这是我对法官意见的其中之一。法官决定了一个结果，然后一些法官会遵循一个流程，说明我应该遵循什么样的流程来做决定。一些法官决定了一个结果，然后他们会弄清楚如何达到那个结果。这是一个法官说的例子，好的，我想要废除这个薪资计划。这是一个事实我需要找到的，它会帮助我达到那个结果。我需要找到埃隆控制了这个过程。所以让我假设埃隆在这里控制了这个过程，即使我没有任何事实来支持它。这是我从法官的话中阅读到的意见。
The first compensation committee discussion of the substantive terms agenda was revised, given the new timeline, short presentation read the CEO grant from Brown. This is the first meeting where the committee would be presented with terms of a compensation plan. In addition to $50 billion market cap milestones that Musk has proposed covered alternatives are flat $25 billion increase or graduated milestones, being a $10 billion increase into 50 billion. These different market cap approaches corresponded to different award sizes ranging from 7.5% of total outstanding shares to Musk's proposed 15%. Although the presentation identified alternatives to Musk's proposal, the presentation included evaluation only for Musk's proposal. Presentation was therefore biased toward Musk's proposal.
首次对实质性条款议程进行的补偿委员会讨论在新的时间安排下进行了修订，首席执行官布朗的简短介绍阅读了授予他的薪酬计划。这是委员会首次拿到薪酬计划条款的会议。除了马斯克提出的市值里程碑达到500亿美元之外，还有两种备选方案，一种是平坦的250亿美元增长，另一种是分阶段的里程碑，即市值增长到500亿美元需要增加100亿美元。这些不同的市值方案相应对应不同的奖励规模，从总挂牌股份的7.5%到马斯克提出的15%。尽管介绍了马斯克建议以外的备选方案，但论述只针对了马斯克的提议。因此，这一介绍在偏向马斯克的提议方面存在偏见。
All this was the first meeting in which the committee considered any terms. I don't know if we have a, it doesn't state what the valuation was, by the way, nowhere has it stated what the valuation was. But, you know, it seems pretty obvious if the proposals range from 7.5% of total outstanding shares to Musk's proposed 15%. I don't know how much of a genius you have to be to figure out it's half. 7.5% is half or 15%. I don't know if you need an expert witness to explain that 7.5% is half or 15%.
这是委员会第一次讨论任何条款的会议。顺便说一下，我不知道我们是否达成了一致，因为它没有说明估值是多少。无论如何，到目前为止，没有提到估值是多少。但是，你知道的，如果提议的范围从总流通股的7.5％到马斯克提出的15％，似乎非常明显。我不知道你得是多大个天才才能明白7.5％是15％的一半。我不知道是否需要专家证人来解释7.5％是15％的一半。
In addition, the market cap and operational model. Now, maybe somebody could have said, hey, let's figure out what's the value here. In addition, market cap and operational milestones, presentation identified other potential grant features, including the following clawback provision. Tesla's executive officers are subject to clawback policy. Presentation contained the following question. Is the current clawback provision sufficient protection for the company? No evidence that the committee discussed this question or ever demanded a more protective clawback provision. The final version of the grant included a clawback provision based on the guidelines. Repayment of certain incentives if there's a restatement of our financial statements. So, okay, this isn't terribly significant, but there's a provision in here to protect Tesla against a restatement of financial statements that would clawback money from Elon.
此外，还有市值和运营模式。也许有人可能会说，嘿，让我们弄清楚这里的价值是什么。此外，根据市值和运营里程碑，演示文稿还指出了其他潜在的授予特点，包括以下的追索规定。特斯拉的高管受到追索政策的约束。演示文稿提出了以下问题。目前的追索规定对公司来说是否足够保护？没有证据表明委员会讨论过这个问题或者要求更具保护性的追索规定。最终版本的授予计划包括了根据指导方针设定的追索规定，即在我们的财务报表重新声明时返还某些激励措施。所以，好吧，这并不是非常重要，但这里有一项条款可以保护特斯拉免受财务报表重新声明的影响，从而要求马斯克返还部分款项。
An M&A adjustment, which is a provision that accounts for impact of financing or acquisitions on the market cap, milestones, these provisions are standard, a hold period, which was a period post exercise during which Musk would be prohibited from selling his stock. Post exercise hold periods decrease the grant accounting value of the stock as follows. Two-year minus 15%, three years minus 18%, and five years minus 22%. Benchmarking analyses were on the advisor's minds. Prior to the first working group meeting, we suggest an end-of-the-art benchmarking. Largest CEO pay packages in 2016, summaries of other executive compensation plans, solar city Nike, Avago technologies and Apple, Radford's $3.1 billion valuation of a grant featuring $50 billion market capitalization, milestones and awarding 15% of total outstanding shares. I think Radford is one of the experts they hired. And Radford's additional preliminary models based on different market cap approaches, but the appendix data does not constitute a traditional bank marking study and is unclear whether committee discussed this information with the risks associated with such grant at any event.
并购调整是一项规定，用于考虑融资或收购对市值、里程碑的影响，这些规定是标准的。保留期是指在行权后的一段时间内，马斯克将被禁止出售他的股票。行权后的保留期会降低股票的授权会计价值，具体如下：两年减免15%，三年减免18%，五年减免22%。顾问们对基准分析非常在意。在第一次工作小组会议之前，我们建议进行最新的基准评估。2016年最大的CEO薪酬计划，其他高管薪酬计划的摘要，太阳能城、耐克、安华高科技和苹果公司，Radford对一个总市值为500亿美元的授权进行了31亿美元的估值，该授权包括里程碑和奖励总额为总股本的15%。我认为Radford是他们雇佣的专家之一。Radford还基于不同市值方法进行了初步模型，但附录数据并不构成传统的基准研究，目前不清楚委员会是否讨论了此信息以及与此类授权相关的风险。
Aaron, we're to contact Tesla's largest institutional stockholders to discuss the new compensation plan, work with outside council to prepare talking points to use during the calls. They ultimately spoke to 15 stockholders between July 7, 2017 and August 1, 2017. Marin sub-boardinates joined these calls and took notes. Now notice these calls took time. So it may like the idea that that Musk slowed the discussion seems dubious. It seems like the plan was slowed because they had a talked institutional stockholders. Someone decided, hey, we need to talk to our largest institutional stockholders before we go forward with this plan. And that obviously took longer than the original timeline. And they have script. Aaron Price introduces himself and Marin identifies his objectives. Sing Musk's praises. Remind the stockholders. Explain their, it's a new compensation structure. Blah, blah, blah. Stockholders to whom Aaron Price and Marin spoke were pleased with the 2012 plan's results and supported a similar approach for new compensation plan. Stockholders also provided suggestions for the new compensation plan that the board ultimately adopted.
Aaron，我们需要联系特斯拉最大的机构股东，讨论新的薪酬计划，并与外部顾问合作准备在通话过程中使用的讲话要点。他们终于在2017年7月7日至2017年8月1日期间与15个股东进行了对话。Marin的下属也参加了这些通话，并做了记录。现在请注意这些通话需要时间。所以马斯克放慢讨论的观点似乎是可疑的。似乎计划被放慢是因为他们与机构股东进行了对话。有人决定在继续实施这个计划之前需要与我们最大的机构股东进行对话。显然，这比原定的时间表要长。而且他们有脚本。Aaron Price先介绍自己，然后Marin概述他的目标。称赞马斯克。提醒股东们。解释他们，这是一个新的薪酬结构。等等。Aaron Price和Marin交谈的股东对2012年的计划结果感到满意，并支持对新的薪酬计划采取类似的方法。股东们还提供了建议，董事会最终采纳了这些建议，并制定了新的薪酬计划。
It's difficult to credit the defendant's narrative for two reasons. First, the script reads like a loaded questionnaire intended solicited positive feedback and not a method for gaining objective stockholder perspectives. Second, what the stockholders said in response to these increases hearsay and untested by the adversarial process, including cross examination.
有两个原因使得很难相信被告的陈述。首先，这个脚本读起来像是一个带有明显偏见的问卷，意在引导正面反馈，而不是获取客观的股东观点的方法。其次，股东对于这些增加的回答仅仅是传闻，并且没有经过对抗程序，包括交叉询问的验证。
Okay. So, okay, this is an important thing to understand hearsay. That's an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. So this is, this is not hearsay. Okay. This is incorrect. What the stockholders said in response to these increases hearsay. It's not that what the stockholders said is proving facts outside the evidence. It's what the stockholders wanted. If the stockholders said this is what we want, right? It's evidence of what they wanted, not evidence of some outside fact. It's not like you asked the stockholders, hey, what did, who shot the defense, who shot the witness, who shot the victim? Who shot the victim, right? And now you've got a statement from some stockholders saying, oh, you know, John shot the victim. Well, you can't cross examine the out of court statement. But here, there's an exception. I don't even know if this qualifies as an exception. You know, there's a rule. This is not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. It's not offered to prove the truth of what the stockholders said. It's offered to show what they wanted. That's, that's different. This is not here said. Okay. So finding that this is here, say, my opinion, this is a mistake. This is a legal mistake. Judge McCormick, she made a mistake by saying that this is here, say. And if somebody wanted to bring in the stockholders as witnesses and ask them questions, the, the, the plaintiffs could have summoned this. If this was an important issue, the plaintiffs could have brought the institutional stockholders in and said, did you have conversations about this? What were your thoughts on this blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah? It is subject to the process. You could have brought them in for depositions.
好的。好的，理解传闻是很重要的一件事。传闻是指在法庭外说的话，用来证明陈述的真实性。所以这个并不是传闻。好的，这是错误的。关于这些增长，股东所说的话是传闻。不是股东所说的话证明了证据之外的事实，而是证明了股东的意愿。如果股东说这就是我们想要的，对吧？那就是他们想要的证据，而不是外部事实的证据。就好像你问股东，嘿，谁开枪射击了辩护人，谁开枪射击了受害者？谁开枪射击了受害者，对吧？然后你得到一些股东的陈述，说，哦，你知道，约翰开枪射击了受害者。那么你就无法质询法庭外的陈述。但在这里，有一个例外。甚至不知道这是否符合例外的要求。你知道，有一个规则。这不是为了证明股东所说的事实的真实性。这是为了展示他们的意愿。这是不同的。这不是传闻。好的。所以认定这是传闻，我认为这是个错误。这是一个法律错误。McCormick法官，她说这是传闻是一个错误。如果有人想要把股东作为证人带进来并询问他们，原告可以传唤他们。如果这是一个重要问题，原告可以把机构股东带进来，并问他们对此事有什么看法，等等，可以受到法律程序的约束。你可以对他们进行调查。
Okay. The working group develops operational milestones. One of the objectives. Operational metrics, EBITDA, operating income free cash flow, blah, blah, blah. Uh, who, who had developed the strategic milestones for the 2012 grant and he took responsibility. Ahojah is the CFO, Deepak, Ahojah. I don't know if I'm pronouncing a hooja, right? Um, so, uh, who, by the way, we're, we're only on page. We're on page seven of 201 here. Is that right? Are we only on page seven? This can't be right. No, we're on page 54. Okay. We're on page 54. I'm sorry. I almost panicked. Ahojah. So, Berg sent, Ahojah and other members of the working group an analysis of historic market cap to revenue ratio of large US companies use this data to propose starting with a 6.5 x revenue to market cap milestone which could be used to determine the initial revenue milestones. 7.5 billion dollars additional revenue for each $50 billion in market cap. The revenue milestones then declined to 4x for the final tranches. Suggested for a bit the milestones.
好的。工作小组正在制定运营里程碑。其中之一的目标是制定运营指标，如EBITDA、营业利润自由现金流等等。嗯，谁为2012年的拨款制定了战略里程碑，并承担了责任。Ahojah是财务总监，Deepak是Ahojah。我不知道我是否正确发音为阿胡杰。呃，顺便说一句，我们只在第7页上。我们在第201页上只有7页吗？这肯定不对。不，我们在第54页。对不起，我差点慌了神。阿胡杰。所以，Berg发送给Ahojah和工作小组的其他成员一份有关美国大公司历史市值与营收比率的分析数据，以提议从6.5倍营收到市值的里程碑开始，这可以用来确定初期的营收里程碑。每增加500亿美元市值，额外的营收里程碑就会减少75亿美元。然后，营收里程碑会逐渐降到4倍。为里程碑建议使用。
There's no evidence here that Elon is driving Ahojah to choose these milestones. The idea that Elon is controlling this process, it appears that Deepak is suggesting these milestones. So far, I haven't seen any indication that Musk is controlling Deepak. Um, projected that Tesla should be able to get to $12 billion a bit over the next 4 to 5 years, depending on volumes and margin assumptions. Um, as to the whole period, the presentation note, the guidelines required a 6 month post, besting hold period. Creative options they can employ to solve for getting a bigger discount on the publicly reported grant date fair value. Uh, provided holding periods ranging from 1 to 10 years in types of options with corresponding discounts. Update for the full board excluding Musk and Kimball on the structure under discussion, Maron sent an email to the full board, summary in the process today and asking everyone to attend upcoming compensation committee meetings.
在这里没有证据表明埃隆正在驱使Ahojah选择这些里程碑。认为埃隆在控制这个过程，似乎是Deepak在暗示这些里程碑。到目前为止，我没有看到任何迹象表明马斯克在控制Deepak。Um，预计特斯拉在未来4到5年内应该能够达到120亿美元，取决于销量和利润率的假设。Um，至于整个期间，演示说明书要求保持期为6个月。他们可以采取创意的方式解决在公开报告授予日期公平价值中获得更大折扣的问题。Uh，提供了1至10年不等的持有期和相应折扣的不同类型的期权。更新了完整的董事会，不包括马斯克和金博尔在内的讨论结构，马龙给全体董事会发送了一封电子邮件，概述了今天的过程，并要求每个人参加即将举行的薪酬委员会会议。
Musk hits the brakes late July 2017 proved a busy time for Tesla, which delivered the first Model 3 on July 29. This triggered the eighth milestone in Musk's 2012 grant. It also prompted Musk to once again reset the compensation to these timelines. In Maron's views, given the struggles with the Model 3 launch, Musk desired to extend the timeline either because he was unsure whether to commit to Tesla, which must deny. Or simply did not want to focus on compensation during a busy time.
2017年7月底，马斯克迎来了忙碌的时刻，特斯拉于7月29日交付了第一辆Model 3车型。这也实现了马斯克2012年授予的第八个目标。这促使马斯克再次调整了对这些时间表的补偿。马伦认为，考虑到Model 3的推出困难，马斯克希望延长时间表，可能因为他不确定是否要投入特斯拉，这种事情必须否定。或者只是不想在繁忙的时候关注补偿的问题。
Whatever the reason Musk hit the brakes in the process, two days before the plan meeting Musk sent Maron a brief email asking to put the discussion of his compensation on hold for a few weeks. Maron said he would rather keep cranking out because there's a fair amount to it that we've been working out the board and there's lead time involved. Musk agreed to let Maron proceeds saying he just wanted to make sure Tesla's interest comes first.
不论马斯克在这个过程中停下来的原因是什么，就在计划会议前两天，马斯克给马隆发了一封简短的电子邮件，请求将他的报酬讨论推迟几周。马隆说他宁愿继续努力，因为这是我们与董事会商量出来的内容，而且需要时间来实施。马斯克同意让马隆继续进行，表示他只是想确保特斯拉的利益第一。
The added compass just so I can put as much as possible towards minimizing existential risk by putting the money towards Mars if I'm successful and leading Tesla to be one of the world's most valuable companies. This is kind of crazy, but it is true. Okay, so by the way, I have said for the longest time that he wants to put the money towards Mars that who's the customer for the Mars mission. Elon is the customer. If Elon becomes the world's first trillionaire, Elon is the one who can fund the Mars mission. Who's the customer for Mars? I've said Elon is the customer for Mars. Here's Elon apparently saying that. But again, look at what happens here. He says Musk puts Musk hits the brakes. Sorry, the judge. She says Musk hits the brakes and what actually happens? Maron says no, I want to keep cranking on and Musk says he agreed to let Maron proceed. So Musk didn't hit the brakes. Musk asked to hit the brakes. Maron said no and Musk said okay. So how is Musk controlling this process? This is ridiculous. The process goes off course.
为了尽量减少存在风险，我加入了指南针，并将资金投入到火星上，如果成功，带领特斯拉成为全球最有价值的公司之一。这有些疯狂，但这是事实。顺便说一下，我已经说过很久了，他想将资金投入到火星，那么谁是火星任务的客户呢？埃隆就是客户。如果埃隆成为全球首富，他将能够资助火星任务。火星的客户是谁？我说过埃隆是火星的客户。似乎埃隆也这样认为。但请再看看这里发生了什么。他说马斯克停下了车，但实际上发生了什么？马龙说不，我要继续前进，马斯克说他同意让马龙继续。所以马斯克没有停下车。马斯克要求停车，马龙说不，马斯克说好。那么马斯克是如何控制这个过程的呢？太荒谬了。整个过程偏离了轨道。
Musk remained hyperphosis on model free production, which was proving slow and painful. As Musk described the trial, the sheer amount of pain required to achieve that call. There's no words to express. This aspect of Musk's testimony was totally credible. Okay, so apparently there's one moment in Elon's testimony where Judge McCormick said Elon was believable, which by the way, this is an indication again. This is a bias against Musk. She does not find Musk to be credible otherwise. This was credible and therefore there are times when Elon was not credible. Right? What is she saying? I did not believe Elon at other times.
马斯克对无模型生产保持了超乎寻常的热情，但这一过程变得缓慢而痛苦。马斯克形容这个尝试所需要的巨大痛苦，无法用言语来表达。马斯克的证词在这一方面是完全可信的。好了，显然在伊隆的证词中有一刻，麦考密克法官说伊隆是可信的，但顺便一提，这也是对马斯克的偏见的一种表现。在其他情况下，她认为马斯克不可信。这就是她的意思，她并不相信马斯克在其他时候所说的话。
There's a little bit more detail here from the email from Musk describing the slow progress is extremely alarming, demanding production of 1000 model three vehicles in the final week of September stating, come hell or high water, that 1000 unit number is going to fucking happen. If I have to help build them myself, I'm going to be a draconian because I have to be in warning the Tesla's life is at stake. Now, notice she doesn't mention in the process that Tesla's life was actually at stake that Tesla was at risk of bankruptcy. She doesn't mention that.
这里有一封来自马斯克的电子邮件，其中详细描述了进展缓慢的情况，令人极为担忧。他要求在九月最后一周生产1000辆Model 3汽车，并坚称不管遇到任何困难，1000辆的数量一定会实现。即使我必须亲自帮助建造它们，我也将毫不留情，因为特斯拉的生命危在旦夕。现在，请注意她在过程中并没有提到特斯拉的生命实际上处于危险之中，即特斯拉面临破产的风险。她没有提到这一点。
All the musculid to allow Marin to keep cranking progress and Musk's compensation plan is low to a halt. There was some discussion of Musk's compensation plan, no action. Highlights of this interactive are discussed in brief below. Telephonic meeting in August one. Is additional compensation for the CEO required given his current ownership and potential appreciation with company performance. This is the first time this key question had been posed. Did Musk require additional compensation? The most curious thing about this question is there no evidence that any director deliberated over it did not appear in any other board or committee materials.
所有肌肉可以让马林继续推进，而马斯克的补偿计划则陷入停滞。关于马斯克的补偿计划进行了一些讨论，但没有采取任何行动。以下简要讨论了此互动的亮点。八月份的电话会议上讨论了一个问题。考虑到CEO目前的股份和随公司业绩可能而增值的潜力，是否需要额外补偿CEO。这是首次提出这个关键问题。马斯克是否需要额外补偿？最奇怪的是，没有证据表明任何董事对此进行了深思熟虑，这也没有出现在任何董事会或委员会的文件中。
Okay, so this hints at the judge saying a founder who owns a large percentage of the company doesn't deserve additional compensation. Right. That's the conclusion. A founder who owns a substantial share of the company doesn't deserve additional compensation. He's already motivated. Next event of interest occurred on September 8 when Aaron Price and Dan Holmes spoke to Musk discuss his compensation plan. Once again, the most notable aspect of this conversation concerns a question and went on discussed. The agenda for the September 8th call identified the following topic for discussion. Should some type of commitment be included as part of comp structure trial testimony, real that no one raised this issue with Musk. Aaron Price called discussing must dedication to Tesla generally and Marin summary.
好的，这暗示法官表示，拥有公司大部分股份的创始人不应该获得额外的补偿。没错，这是结论。拥有公司大部分股份的创始人不应该获得额外的补偿，因为他已经有动力了。接下来发生的感兴趣的事件是在9月8日，当时艾伦·普赖斯和丹·霍尔姆斯与马斯克讨论他的报酬计划。再次，这次对话最引人注目的方面涉及一个问题的提出和讨论。9月8日电话的议程确定了以下讨论主题。作为报酬结构审判证词的一部分，是否应该包括某种承诺，但没有人就此问题与马斯克提出过。艾伦·普赖斯通电话时讨论了马斯克对特斯拉的专注性，而马林总结部分则谈到了这个问题。
The call reflects that the participants discussed the opportunity costs of Musk devoting time to Tesla, although, Musk didn't have a good recollection. The September 8th call. He was confident they did not discuss a time or attention commitment. Musk said that would be silly.
这次电话反映出与会者讨论了马斯克将时间投入到特斯拉所带来的机会成本，尽管马斯克并没有很好地回忆起来。这次电话是在9月8日进行的。马斯克对于他们没有讨论时间或关注度的承诺感到自信。他表示那样做很愚蠢。
Presentation also reflected Musk's proposed 15 trans structure. I believe it ended up being a 12 trans structure. So there was a change there. Okay.
演示文稿也反映了马斯克提出的15个变压器结构。我认为最终采用了12个变压器结构。所以这里发生了变动。好的。
Board met on September 19th, but meeting was not terribly interesting report on the committee's progress. They have a presentation covering much of the same ground as the August 1 presentation. Value the 15% mark cap option at a two to $3 billion grant date fair value. Okay. This is an important detail. We'll see if this gets coverage, whether the judge pays attention. Value the 15% market cap option at a two to $3 billion grant date fair value. So this is saying at the date we award this. We're giving Elon something worth two to $3 billion.
董事会于9月19日开会，但会议对委员会进展的报告并不太有趣。他们有一个演示，涵盖了与8月1日演示大部分相同的内容。对于15%的市值上限，以两到30亿美元的授予日公平价值予以评估。好的。这是一个重要的细节。我们将看看这是否会被报道，法官是否会关注。以两到30亿美元的授予日公平价值评估15%的市值上限选项。所以这意味着在授予这项权益时，我们将给予埃隆价值为两到30亿美元的东西。
Or in the meeting minutes, the board expects his general support for the overall structure of the grant. And we have a footnote 304. That's just okay. There's nothing there. That's just a indicating where it's in where it is in the transcript.
在会议记录中，董事会期望他对赠款的整体结构给予一般性支持。而我们有一个脚注304。那没关系，里面没有内容。只是用来指示在记录中的位置。
Board favorite a long term stock option grant with performance based fasting. Ordinated Musk was driven by large goals and viewed the discussed targets as achievable given the potential the company believed Musk would as well.
董事会喜欢长期股票期权授予，并与绩效为基础的激励方案相结合。董事会认为，由于公司相信马斯克具备的潜力，马斯克受到了追求高目标的驱使，同时也认为所讨论的目标是可以实现的。
Before this period of activity, the only milestones in discuss with the $50 billion market cap milestones. Operational rival milestones remain to be determined, but a huge, you gave them some thought working group meeting. Discussions focused on adjusted the bit that's unclear made the decision to focus on that metric.
在此活动期之前，讨论中唯一的里程碑是50亿美元的市值里程碑。运营对手的里程碑尚待确定，但一个庞大的工作小组会议给了他们一些思考的机会。讨论聚焦于澄清不明确的位点，并决定将重点放在该指标上。
Why does that matter? A huge as one of his employees for operational metrics that will line up with the 15 increments. A huge in vision 15 adjusted a bit to milestones ranging to $2 billion to $25 billion across comparisons. After pulling the data, members of Hoosius team responded, they didn't see immediate parallels to where we are more information.
为什么这很重要？作为他的员工之一，关于与15个增量相符的运营指标的重要性。有一个巨大的愿景15，基于2,500亿到25,000亿美元范围内的里程碑进行了适当的调整并进行了比较。在获取数据后，Hoosius团队的成员回应说，他们没有立即看到与我们更多信息相关的直接对应之处。
Reached out to his team for out developing 10 adjusted e-bit to metrics that ended revenue about $150 billion in market cap by 800 billion using percent and multiples which start high and progressively become lower.
联络他的团队以开发出10项调整的E-比特度量，这些度量以利用百分比和倍数逐渐降低的方式，将市值高达8000亿美元的营收提高约1500亿美元。
Thinking as we will develop a bit to based operational metrics rather than revenue based. It is unclear who dictated that thinking at that time. A Tesla employee responding to a provided temp.
在考虑我们将依据运营指标而非收入进行一点点发展时，有人指定的思维还不清楚是谁。这是一位特斯拉员工对提供的临时性问题的回应。
Well, I don't know why it's unclear. I think it's obvious that Deepak is doing his own analysis of what's appropriate, which is his fucking job. Like, why? The problem is that in revenue, if you rely on revenue alone and you're not profitable, that's not meaningful. And he bit is an appropriate method. I think it's James Stevenson who explained this to me that he bit maybe was either Dave, maybe was Dave Lee who explained that when you have a startup company, a bit as a better measure. Not in he wasn't referring to the, I don't think he was referring to the award structure. He was referring to when you're looking at a company value in your company and a startup phase. You want to look at a bit.
嗯，我不知道为什么这个不清楚。我认为显而易见的是，迪巴克正在自己分析什么是适当的，这是他该做的工作。为什么呢？问题是，如果你仅仅依靠收入而没有盈利，那就没有意义。而他提到的方法是合适的。我想是詹姆斯·斯蒂文森向我解释过，他可能是戴夫，也可能是戴夫·李解释过，当你拥有一家初创公司时，盈利是更好的衡量指标。他并没有指的奖励结构，他指的是当你在公司价值和初创阶段时，你想要看的是盈利。
Tesla employee responded 10, a bit to milestones. The play found would necessitate a bit multiple well above that of Amazon cap apple or Google. So that's saying the profit would have to be substantially higher.
特斯拉员工回答说是10，有点接近里程碑。这个发现的娱乐项目需要的利润会远远超过亚马逊、苹果或谷歌的市值。换句话说，利润必须大幅增加。
At the end of October, production difficulties seem to be easing. Production will sue enter the steep portion of the manufacturing S per, which will create nonlinear production growth with Tesla's production stabilizing must turn his attention back to his compensation plan. Lower is his ask. Stady, you want to move forward. He meant something. He wanted to reduce something less than 15% of total outstanding shares. It's unclear why Musk decided to lower his ask is possibly trying to single handedly calibrate the compensation package to terms that more reasonable later that morning he told me, and I would like to take board action as soon as possible.
在十月底，生产困难似乎开始缓解。生产将进入制造S曲线的陡峭阶段，这将导致特斯拉的生产出现非线性的增长，因此特斯拉的生产稳定后必须重新关注他的薪酬计划。他降低了要求。稳定下来，你想向前进。他有一个意思。他想将总未偿股份减少不超过15%。目前尚不清楚马斯克为何决定降低他的要求，可能是试图独自校准薪酬计划，以便后续议程更加合理。当天上午他告诉我，我希望尽快采取董事会行动。
Feel comfortable. Then we'll go to the shareholders. I think the amount should be reduced to a 10% increment in my Tesla ownership. If I can get us to a $550 billion valuation. But that should be a fully diluted 10% factory and then it dilutes me to. So it was awarded to me and now and I own probably 20% fully diluted and I would have 30%. Of course, there will be future dilution due to employee grants and equity raises. So probably this is more like 25% or more or so in 10 years when there's some chance of being fully awarded.
感到舒适。然后我们将向股东展示。我认为我在特斯拉的持股量应该减少到10％的增加。如果我能使我们的估值达到5500亿美元。但那应该是一个完全稀释的10％的份额，然后它会稀释我的份额。所以那是授予给我的，现在我可能拥有20％的完全稀释份额，而且我将拥有30％的份额。当然，由于员工授予和股本增加，将来会有进一步稀释。所以也许在10年后，有机会全部获得时，这可能更接近25％或更多。
The implication of much is proposed. He's a 10% fully diluted figure at 1% tranches that he now saw the 10% structure.
这句话的意思是：提出了很多含义。他是一个完全稀释的10%数字，分为1%的分段，他现在看到了这个10%的结构。
Moments later, Musk sent me another email given this will all go to causes that it leads aspirationally maximize the probability of a good future for humanity. Plus all Tesla shareholders will be super happy.
几分钟后，马斯克给我发了另一封邮件，表示这一切都将用于旨在最大限度地提高人类未来良好可能性的事业。此外，所有特斯拉股东都将非常高兴。
I think this will be received while it should come across as an ultra bullish view of the future given this pump.
我认为这将会被接受，尽管它应该被视为对未来极度看涨的观点，因为这次大涨。
Comp package is worth nothing if all I do is almost double test as market cap. So in other words, if Elon almost doubles Tesla's market cap from where it is at this point, he gets nothing. Right.
如果我所做的只是将测试市值增加近一倍的话，那么Comp（奖励计划）就没有任何价值。换句话说，如果埃隆（马斯克）将特斯拉的市值从当前水平几乎翻倍，他将得到零。是的。
And we've got the Gordon Johnson's the world saying Tesla's a busted growth story. This is never going to happen.
我们现在有了戈登·约翰逊的评论，他认为特斯拉是一个失败的增长故事。这是永远不会发生的。
Relate his proposal Chang sent Aaron price a list of talking points. The numbers were talking about how we doing. How are we doing here? I can't tell how many people are watching. All right, let's go back.
张向阿伦普莱斯发送了一份谈话要点清单，以回应他的提议。这些数字描述了我们的表现情况。我们在这方面表现如何？我无法告知有多少人在观看。好吧，我们回到原点。
Remember, we're talking about a lower than before 10 tranches to 550 billion. Meanwhile, Jervitson began to leave Vap since at this time. He'd been a managing director. It's became a PR problem for Tesla. It returned to the board April 2019, but left against September 2020.
请记住，我们正在谈论的是一个低于之前的10个系列从5500亿美元开始。与此同时，杰维特森从这个时候开始离开了Vap。他曾经是一名总经理。这对特斯拉来说成为了一个公关问题。他于2019年4月回到了董事会，但在2020年9月离职了。
Musk emailed Marin again asking to pause for a week or two on his compensation plan as it would be a terrible timing. Did not recall the nature of the problem.
马斯克再次给马林发了邮件，请求将他的补偿计划暂停一周或两周，因为现在是一个非常不合适的时机。他无法回忆起问题的性质。
Musk's November 9 proposal, the unintended consequence of raising Musk's demand. According to Chang, Musk's demand increases current percentage of fully diluted shares by 10 percentage points would require an award of nearly 30 million shares, which equal to approximately 17% of total outstanding shares turned out to be larger than his proposal initial proposal, contrary to his desire for reduced amount. Marin sent Chang's calculations.
马斯克11月9日的提议，导致了他需求增加的无意后果。根据张先生所说，马斯克提出的需求会使当前被稀释股份的比例增加10个百分点，这就需要颁发近3000万股股票，相当于总流通股的约17%，超过了他最初提出的降低数额的意愿。马林将张先生的计算结果发送给了他。
Musk responded on December 1 telling Marin that is more than I intended. Let's go with 10% of the current FDM. That's number. So 20.9515 million. Fully diluted share total. So Marin pushes back. Marin and Chang push back and say, Elon, no, that's too much. And Elon says, okay. And this is the moment where Elon says, I guess I was negotiating against myself. I don't understand why that's a big deal. Musk is negotiating. In other words, the board was probably ready to approve the larger number and he line negotiated down. And he's going to need to reduce it lower.
马斯克在12月1日回复马林说，这比我打算的多了。我们按照目前的FDM的10%来算。这是一个数字。所以是2095.15万。全面摊薄之后的股份总数。所以马林反驳道。马林和张也反驳并说，埃隆，不，那太多了。埃隆说，好吧。这是埃隆说的那一刻，我想我自己在进行谈判。我不明白为什么这是个大问题。马斯克在进行谈判。换句话说，董事会可能准备批准更大的数字，而他则进行了降低谈判。他需要再降低一点。
The party's crammed a lot of work into a few days in December, but that's not true. That's not true. If you read the facts, they're pushing back against Elon's number and Elon agrees to lower it. So the conclusion that Elon made a comment about is sort of half joking does not change the fact that the facts that you laid out are Marin and Chang pushed back against Elon saying that's too much. Let's go with, we need to go with a lesser number and Elon agreed to a lesser number.
这个派对在12月份的几天里安排了很多工作，但这不是真的。如果你看看事实，他们在反驳埃隆的数字，而埃隆也同意降低数字。所以埃隆开玩笑地做出的评论并不改变你所提出的事实，马林和张明确定表示埃隆的数值过高。让我们采用一个较低的数字，并且埃隆也同意了较低的数字。
Party's crammed a lot of work into a few days in December. Renewed sense of urgency approved a 12-tranch grant structure in a set of operational milestones.
党派在十二月把许多工作安排得密密麻麻。随着紧迫感的增强，他们批准了一个包含12个阶段的资金拨款计划，并设定了一系列的操作里程碑。
Musk appeared prepared to accept the transaction, which the minister described at the lower end of the previously contemplated range of 12% of total outstanding shares.
马斯克似乎已经准备好接受这笔交易，该交易被该部长描述为之前考虑过的总未偿股份的12%的较低端范围。
Okay. 12% 12-tranch structure. All pre November 19 discussions in between 15 tranches, then there was 10 tranches, compensation committee approved a 12-tranch structure, which was presented at the board two days later.
好的。百分之十（12%）的12段式结构。在11月19日之前的所有讨论中，有15个段落，然后变成了10个段落，薪酬委员会批准了一个12段式的结构，两天后提交给董事会。
Party's discussed the evolution was intended to counter Musk's offer for a fleet of 10% and its correlated 10% infrastructure. 12% of total outstanding shares equals approximately 10% fully diluted, making it seem like there was no real upside using 12% figure. Adding two more tranches on top of Musk's suggested 10 tranches required a Tesla to hit the $50 billion market cap, and two more times to generate an additional $100 billion in market cap.
参与讨论的一方旨在抵制马斯克（Elon Musk）提出的10%车队及其相应的10%基础设施的报价。总股本中的12%大致相当于10%的全面稀释股份，这使得使用12%的数字似乎没有真正的增长空间。在马斯克建议的10个分段之外再增加两个分段，需要特斯拉达到500亿美元的市值，并再增加两倍达到额外的1,000亿美元市值。
So it made it harder for Musk to achieve the maximum payout of the grant, testified the shift from fully diluted total outstanding shares with one of two areas where the board pushed significantly and I conceded. This testimony finds no support in the contemporaneous record, although there are benefits of a 12-tranch structure to minority shareholders, that moved to 12% and 12 tranches was driven by the board's preference to base the ground and total outstanding shares rather than fully diluted shift. It makes it harder for Elon to achieve the goals. It makes it harder for Elon to get what he's looking for. You know, again, this strikes me as a judge who's decided on a result before doing the analysis.
所以，这使得马斯克更难实现授权计划的最大获利，这在董事会极力推动的两个方面之一上有所表明，而我也承认了这一点。尽管12个阶段的结构对少数股东有好处，但这种证词在当时的记录中没有得到支持，同时董事会基于土地和总流通股而不是全面稀释转变的偏好驱使股权授权计划的变化。这使得埃隆更难实现目标。这使得埃隆更难达到他所期望的目标。你知道，再说一遍，这让我觉得这个法官在进行分析之前已经决定结果了。
This is very clear that the board is pushing back. This is board changing the requirements, making it harder for Elon to get what he wants, you know, a $100 billion increase in market cap to get the full outcome.
很明显，董事会正在反对。董事会在更改要求，使得埃隆难以获得他想要的东西，你知道的，就是使市值增加1000亿美元来取得完全的结果。
This issue rose first rose during the November 16 board meeting. There's this focus on fully diluted shares versus total outstanding shares. Like who cares? Board of you total outstanding shares is simple or metric and used it with.
这个问题首次在11月16日的董事会会议上提出。关注点是全面摊薄股份与总流通股份的比较。但谁在乎呢？董事会只需要使用简单的总流通股指标。
Okay.
好的。
How the special meeting discussed the grant. They went for simplicity of 10. 10 means the end goal is smaller 12 tranches of 1% each. The board agreed to the size demanded by must prefer to base it on total outstanding shares consistent with their discussion. So they went against Elon with total outstanding shares instead of fully diluted shares.
特别会议讨论了这项拨款事宜。他们选择了10的简洁方式。10表示最终目标是12个不同的1%的部分。董事会同意按照他们的讨论，将拨款规模定在与总流通股一致的基础上，尽管总流通股与全面摊薄股份相比更小。因此，他们没有采用埃隆的全面摊薄股份，而是采用了总流通股。
Completed size of the grant is here. Grant size will be 20.1 million shares, which is less than I think, he wanted proposed. 12% of total outstanding shares 9.8% of fully diluted shares.
这里是拨款的最终规模。拨款规模将为2010万股，比我原本以为的要少。占总发行股份的12%，占全面稀释股份的9.8%。
Email Chang and Tesla's corporate controller. Aaron Price told the board must was prepared to accept this grant size. There's no discussion. Any minutes or notes of the November 16 blah, blah, blah. The board desired 12 tranches because it's better for the minority shareholders. To the contrary, the only explanation the record for the 12 trans structures, the board preferred to measure the grant by total outstanding shares for simplicity sake. No evidence that the board pushed for the 12% 12 trans structure.
请抄送给Chang和特斯拉的公司控制官。Aaron Price告诉董事会必须准备接受这个授予的金额。没有任何关于11月16日讨论的会议纪要或笔记。董事会希望分成12个部分，因为这对于少数股东来说更有利。相反，唯一解释十二个部分结构的记录是，董事会更喜欢以总流通股数来衡量授予的简单性。没有证据表明董事会推动了12%的12个部分结构。
Okay. So there's this point about minority stockholders. Um. You know, the 12th trans structure makes it harder for E line to achieve his goals. And it means that the shareholders have to get an extra $100 billion in market cap. That's obviously better for minority shareholders if the market cap is that setting is 10 is 100 billion higher. Um, what differences does it make if they said this is good for the minority stockholders is good for all the stockholders. No evidence the board pushed for the 12% 12 trans structure must did not recall the board pushing or must conceding anything. He testified that all the size of the overall plan was one of the features that was different than I think were initially thought of by E line. I don't want to say that it was a necessary over his objection. Or discuss the structure the operational milestones came to a consensus to use both sales and profits metrics directed the compensation committee and management develop operational milestones.
好的。所以有一个关于少数股东的观点。嗯，12转结构使得E线更难实现他的目标。这意味着股东必须争取额外的1000亿美元市值。如果市值比设定的目标高1000亿美元，显然对于少数股东来说更好。如果他们说这对少数股东有利，对所有股东也有利会有什么不同。没有证据表明董事会推动12%的12转结构，也没有回忆到董事会推动或让步的事情。他证明整体计划的规模是E线最初所想的不同之处之一。我不想说这是对他的异议的必要之举。或者讨论结构，经营里程碑得出共识使用销售和利润指标，指示薪酬委员会和管理层制定经营里程碑。
Took up the mantle used to comparatively low 10% a bit to revenue margin. Refined the model to three options for six eight or 12 of each of revenue and adjusted a bit to milestones.
对先前只有相对较低10%的收入利润率进行了改进。将模型细化为三个选项，每种选项包含六个、八个或十二个里程碑，以及相应的收入调整。
Now there's this. Um, why is 10% a bit to over revenue margin low? Low compared to what compared to an auto company compared to a tech company. 360. It's not it's not clear why this is relatively low from that from the opinion. By December 10, we find the model three options for six eight or 12 of each revenue all okay. So I'll achieve achieve develop achievable operational milestones and analyze information regarding adjusted a bit to revenue ratios of certain peers Amazon 8% Apple 34% and Google 42%. Yeah, well, okay. Comparatively low to Apple and Google. Not compared. They're not even trying to compare to car companies. Like what is it for car companies and Amazon 8% this is higher than Amazon.
现在有这个问题。嗯，为什么10%的收入利润率偏低？与什么相比较低？与汽车公司相比较低？与科技公司相比较低？360，从这个观点来看，为什么相对较低并不清楚。到12月10日，我们找到了Model 3，每个收入六八或十二的选择都可以。所以我将实现发展可行的运营里程碑，并分析一些同行公司的调整后净利润与收入比率的信息，亚马逊为8%苹果为34%，谷歌为42%。嗯，好吧。与苹果和谷歌相比相对较低。与汽车公司不比较。像亚马逊8%这种情况反而更高。
Ultimately, it's the same as Amazon. He started the 50 billion dollar market cap milestone backed into revenue and a bit to targets. Explained to the operational market cap milestones have to be somewhat aligned has to make sense to be able to achieve around the same time or what you think is the same time. And there's a key point here, which is if you achieve the market cap without achieving the revenue and the ABITDA, then you know that you're getting compensated for not really achieving the operational goals.
归根结底，与亚马逊一样。他把500亿美元的市值里程碑拆分为收入和一些目标。解释了运营市值里程碑必须在一定程度上一致，必须合理，能够在大致相同的时间内达到，或者你认为是相同的时间。这里还有一个关键点，即如果在不实现收入和ABITDA的情况下达到市值，则说明你实际上没有实现运营目标而得到了补偿。
So why are these goals unreasonable? Because they're less than Apple and Google. And there's not there's no I don't see any analysis by the judge of that. It's just sort of throwing it out there. Again, we're only on page what page are we on? We're only in page 74. Maybe the judge lays it out later during the December 12 meeting board also reviewed Tesla's then current operating plan and projections. The one year projections underline the operating plan forecast to 27.4 billion in total revenue and 4.3 billion and adjusted a bit by late 2000 to 2018. And thus it's predicted achievement of three milestones in 2018 alone. The three year long run projections underline that plan reflected that by 2019 and 2020 and Tesla would achieve 7 and 11 operation and milestones respectively. That's not this is like goals. You know, this is what they're trying to achieve that lots of companies say this is what we're going for. That doesn't mean they actually they actually were assured of achieving these goals. The point is to achieve the goals. I guarantee you Gordon Johnson at the time was saying they were not going to achieve them and all sorts of wall streeters are saying they're not going to achieve them.
因此，为什么这些目标是不合理的呢？因为它们比苹果和谷歌低。而且，我没有看到法官对此作出任何分析。他只是随意提出了这个问题。再说一遍，我们只在第几页？我们才在第74页。也许法官在12月12日的会议上会详细说明。董事会还审查了特斯拉当时的经营计划和预测。一年的预测表明，根据经营计划，预计总收入将达到274亿美元，截至2018年底的调整后利润预计为43亿美元，并预测在2018年独立实现三个里程碑。三年的长期预测表明，根据该计划，特斯拉将在2019年和2020年分别实现7个和11个运营和里程碑。这就像是目标。你知道，这是他们试图实现的目标，很多公司都会说这是我们的目标。这并不意味着他们确实能够实现这些目标。关键是要实现这些目标。我保证，当时的戈登·约翰逊（Gordon Johnson）肯定说他们不会实现这些目标，而且很多华尔街人士也说他们不会实现。
The day after the December 12 board meeting Chang provided Bergen Brown the near final term sheet. Leadership requirement reflected agreement on a leadership requirement conditioning investing under the grant on must being CEO or executive chairman chief product officer. 2012. In addition to investing in many CEO. The board relaxes the request to allow vesting of must was not CEO was but executive chairman. This does this seems like a trivial details. Gracias explained the more lenient leadership requirement like the board is believed that must both idle function was the chief product officer not a CEO. There's no evidence the board ever discussed or negotiated this with Musk. Yeah, but there's voices out there who wanted to go to a point of CEO. He's chief product officer at X. It doesn't mean he's not very involved with the company and doesn't mean he's not adding value CEO is just a title. It doesn't mean you're the you're the most important person in the company. And he let us made fun of the CEO title right he's now he's not even CEO. What is he? Chief to know he's not chief to it. That's X December 13 term sheet. Techno king is he tech no king December 13 term sheet reflected boards intent to include an M&A adjustment the grant. Scluded from the market cap milestone acquisitions with a purchase price of over a billion dollars. And the revenue in a bit to milestones excluded amounts attributable to acquisitions providing more than 500 million or 100 million of each respectively. Describe this as a negotiated term that must one of the M&A adjustments just to apply to single milestone at the point of M&A. We ultimately got those adjustments to. So again, the board is disagreeing with the line and getting what they want. Musk would eventually come around to the M&A adjustment as proposed by the board. So he so is must control this transaction or not must came around and agreed to it and Marin is disagreeing with the line and who just you know you have this situation where Musk says what he wants. And then Marin says no, we're going to do this and who just says no, we're going to do this and Musk is going along with it. So how is Musk controlling this transaction?
在12月12日的董事会会议之后，张提供给伯根·布朗了一份近乎最终的条款清单。领导要求反映出对领导要求的共识，即在授予资助的条件下，必须成为CEO或执行董事首席产品官。此外，除了投资于许多CEO外，董事会还放宽了要求，允许授予资助的人也可以成为执行董事长。这似乎是一个微不足道的细节。格雷西亚斯解释了更宽松的领导要求，就像董事会认为必须同时担任首席产品官而不是CEO。没有证据表明董事会曾与马斯克讨论或谈判过这个问题。是的，但是有些人声称他想担任首席执行官。他是X公司的首席产品官。这并不意味着他不参与公司，也并不意味着他没有为公司增加价值。CEO只是一个头衔，这并不意味着你是公司里最重要的人。他甚至嘲笑过CEO这个头衔，他现在甚至连CEO都不是了。他是什么？他是首席到底谁知道，他不是首席到底是谁知道。是12月13日的条款清单，技术之王，Tech No King。12月13日的条款清单反映了董事会打算在资助中包括一项并购调整。排除了以超过10亿美元购买价格的市值里程碑收购和排除了收入和利润指标中归因于超过5亿美元或各自为1亿美元以上的收购金额。将其描述为一个有争议的条款，即必须在并购时仅适用于单一里程碑。我们最终获得了这些调整。所以，董事会再一次对这个细节表示意见，并且得到了他们想要的。马斯克最终同意了董事会提出的并购调整。所以他是在控制这次交易吗？还是说他对此交易没有控制权？
After speaking to the D.Pock proposed a threshold that would exclude acquisition based market cap growth amounting a lesser of 5% market cap must counter again against himself with a threshold of lower than 2%. I don't think we'll be making big acquisitions. There's no chance I will game the economics here. So I'm fine with limits that prevent that. He's agreeing to limits they propose and then saying no, make it tighter on me.
在与D.Pock交谈后，他提出了一个门槛，该门槛将排除基于市值增长的收购金额，该金额低于市值的5%必须再次反对自己，门槛低于2%。我认为我们不会进行大规模的收购。在这里，我不会扭曲经济情况。所以我接受限制，防止这种情况发生。他同意他们提出的限制，然后说不，对我施加更严格的限制。
I've discussed in the issue, all agreed the following exclusion triggers. Hold period. In duration, the whole period was an open issue. Aaron Price described as a negotiated term. Similarly, testified the board pushed for this term, which was his biggest concern, which means he would either need to run the company for another five years after the stock passed or even need to find someone who would run the company well enough. To not cause the valuation to subsequently decline, significant lock and happen in five years. So it looks like the board insisted on a five year hold and it went in, even though Elon didn't want it. Again, is Elon controlling this or not?
我已经在这个问题上进行了讨论，大家都同意以下的排除触发条件。持有期限。在持续的期间中，整个时期都是一个悬而未决的问题。阿龙·普莱斯将其描述为一项协商条款。类似地，董事会证实了对这一条款的推动，这是他最关心的问题，这意味着他要么在股票转让后再经营公司五年，要么需要找到能够良好经营公司的人。为了不引起估值随后下降，将在五年内进行重大限制和约束。因此，看起来董事会坚持了五年的限制期，并通过了，即使埃隆本人并不想要。再次强调，埃隆是否控制这个局面？
On December 22, Berg provided a valuation letter based on the December 13 term sheet. Berg used Monte Carlo simulations to estimate the probability of hitting the market cap milestones, which generally accepted statistical technique.
在12月22日，伯格根据12月13日的条款框架发表了一份估值函。伯格使用蒙特卡洛模拟来估计达到市值里程碑的概率，这是一种被广泛接受的统计技术。
Berg's market cap call describes 100 billion would occur 45% of the time. After which the likelihood of achieving substantive milestones rapidly declined to below 10% from milestone six onward. Monte Carlo evaluation did not account for the probability of hitting operation of milestones in order to incorporate Tesla's internal projections.
伯格对市值的预测表明，1000亿美元的市值有45%的可能性会出现。之后，实现重要里程碑的可能性迅速下降，从第六个里程碑开始就低于10%。蒙特卡罗评估没有考虑到达里程碑操作的可能性，以便纳入特斯拉内部的预测。
Based on these estimates, he reached an initial grant date fair value for the 2018 grant of 2.6 billion. Then applied a 10.52% illiquidity discount based on the five year hold period arriving in a final value of 2.4 billion dollars. They continue to refine his valuation the following weeks by tweaking assumptions, including the holding period and dilution rate. Slightly higher final valuation of 2.6 billion. Still higher final valuation of 2.6 billion resulting from intervening increases the total number shares a higher stock price and slight changes to other assumptions.
根据这些估计，他确定了 2018 年授予的初始公平价值为26亿美元。然后根据五年持有期应用了10.52%的非流动性折扣，最终估值为24亿美元。随后几周，他们通过微调假设来进一步完善他的估值，包括持有期和稀释率。最终估值略高，为26亿美元。由于中间增加了总股数、较高的股票价格和其他假设的微小变化，最终估值进一步提高至26亿美元。
Board approves the grant. Musk and Kim will refuse themselves. Requuse themselves. Jervison was on leave. The other six directors. Aaron Price, Danholm, Gracias, Bus, Murdoch and Johnson Rice unanimously approved the grant. Final form divided into 12. Testing tranches. We already know the details. Hey.
董事会批准了资助申请。马斯克和金委员将自行拒绝。罢免自己。杰维森正在休假。其他六位董事：亚伦·普莱斯、丹霍姆、格拉西亚斯、巴斯、默多克和约翰逊·赖斯一致批准了该资助申请。最终形式分为12个测试量。我们已经了解到了细节。嘿。
Each completed chance earns Musk's options to purchase 1% of Tesla's common stock outstanding. Before a five for one stock split in 2020. Blah, blah, blah. Strike price of these options was $350. The closing price of Tesla's common stock is of January 19, 2019. Adjusting for two stock splits. The strike price was $23 as of today's share value. Also included clawback provision leadership requirement, M&A adjustment of five year hold period. Grant expired after 10 years. Stockholders approved the grant.
每次完成机会都能使马斯克获得购买特斯拉普通股1%的选择权。在2020年进行了五对一的股票分割之前。咕噜咕噜咕噜。这些期权的行使价格为350美元。特斯拉普通股的收盘价自2019年1月19日调整后的两次股票分割为参考。截至今天的股票价值，行使价格为23美元。还包括可收回条款领导要求，M&A五年持有期的调整。授予在10年后到期。股东已批准该授予。
Board approval is not the finish line because the board condition that 2018 grant on approval. So I think this is what we're going to get into a big issue. The proxy statement. Announced the 2018 grant to the public filed a preliminary proxy statement. filed this standard of proxy statement on February 8, which notified stockholders of a vote to approve the 2018 grant.
董事会的批准并非终点，因为董事会对2018年的授予提出了条件。因此，我认为我们可能会遇到一个大问题，即代理声明。在2月8日提交了这份关于2018年授予的初步代理声明，通知股东进行投票以批准这项授予。
Included statements in issue in this litigation to describe all compensation committee members as independent directors. Despite Gracias's close relationship with Musk. Okay.
尽管格拉西亚斯与马斯克有密切的关系，但该诉讼中的陈述将所有薪酬委员会成员描述为独立董事。好的。
So the claim is that the compensation committee members were not all independent because Gracias was close with Musk. But if you look at what happened here. You know, if there's an important detail. If you go through the description, the judges description of everything that happened along the way. Gracias did not play a significant role in designing the compensation package. It was Marin. It was Aaron prize. And it was. A who D. Pop. That designed the compensation package rather than. Gracias. Gracias is on the on the on the committee, but that's it.
因此，主张是补偿委员会成员并不都是独立的，因为格拉西亚斯和马斯克关系密切。但是，如果你看看这里发生的事情。你知道，如果有一个重要的细节。如果你仔细阅读法官对整个过程的描述。格拉西亚斯在设计补偿方案方面并没有起到重要的作用。是马林、亚伦·普赖斯以及阿胡迪·波普设计了补偿方案，而不是格拉西亚斯。格拉西亚斯只是委员会的一员，仅此而已。
Did not disclose the April 9 conversation between Musk and Aaron prize during which Musk established the key turns of the 2018 grant.
没有透露穆斯克和亚伦普莱斯之间于4月9日的对话，穆斯克在其中确定了2018年授予的关键转折点。
Discussion of the conversation appeared in at least four earlier drafts of the proxy. Each of the requirements underlying the performance milestones was selected to be very difficult to achieve in the board based this new award on stretch goals. Grants milestones were ambitious. When setting the milestones, the board carefully considered a variety of factors, resets of projections.
在至少四个早期代理人的草稿中，出现了关于这次对话的讨论。每个绩效里程碑背后的要求都被选择为非常困难，在此基础上董事会将这个新的奖项设立为有挑战性的目标。授予的里程碑是雄心勃勃的。在设定里程碑时，董事会仔细考虑了各种因素，并重新制定了预测。
Let's go. Let's get through. Under the July 2017 projections test, what achieved three of the revenue milestones and all of the adjusted a bit to milestones in 2020. The proxy did not disclose this. So what. That that that that projections that's what Tesla's trying to achieve. We're trying to achieve the goals that we're trying to achieve so that Elon can get the compensation.
让我们走吧。让我们突破困境。根据2017年7月的预测测试，2020年实现了三个收入里程碑和所有调整后的里程碑。这一点未被委托方披露。那又怎样呢？这些预测就是特斯拉努力实现的目标。我们努力实现我们正在追求的目标，这样Elon就能得到报酬。
Obviously, they're trying to achieve all these goals. And I guarantee you in July 2017. Gordon Johnson was saying they're not going to achieve any of these and lots of Wall Street is we're going to say they're not going to cheap and there's like you said, 20% short sellers. The stock was 20% short and lots of people said they weren't going to achieve these goals. A huge and developed and must have proven to operating plan and projections in December.
显而易见，他们正在努力实现所有这些目标。我保证，在2017年7月，高登·约翰逊曾表示他们不会达成任何这些目标，而且华尔街上还有很多人也说他们做不到，并且有像你说的20%的空头卖家。这家公司的股票空头比例达到20%，很多人都认为他们无法实现这些目标。他们在12月份有一个巨大且发达的经营计划和预测，证明了他们的可行性。
The longer three year projections underline that plan reflected by 2019 and 2020 test that would achieve seven and 11 operation milestones respectively. The proxy did not disclose this. Why would the proxy disclose underlying business plans? After Tesla issued the proxy, but before the stockholder vote presented the board with a three year operating plan. Which Tesla later shared with Moody's. March a 2018 projections were more pessimistic than previous projections, but still predicted achievement of one revenue and two milestones.
长达三年的规划强调了该公司在2019年和2020年通过测试所展示的计划，将分别实现七项和十一项运营里程碑。代理人并没有披露这些信息。为什么代理人要披露潜在的商业计划呢？在特斯拉发布代理人之后，但在股东投票提出之前，董事会提供了一个为期三年的经营计划。特斯拉随后与穆迪分享了这个计划。2018年3月的预测比以前的预测更悲观，但仍预测实现一个收入和两个里程碑。
Tesla would issue a supplemental disclosure with this information, but non-to-laptop the stockholder vote.
特斯拉将发布一份附加披露，包含这些信息，但不会影响股东投票。
Track support and opposition the 2018 grant among stockholders and engaged in outreach, the two largest proxy advisors, ISS and glass.
跟踪股东对2018年拨款的支持和反对意见，并积极进行外部沟通，其中包括两家最大的代理律师公司，ISS和glass。
Those both recommended voting against the 2018 grant last Lewis Express concern with a size and potential delivered vector of the grant noting that any relative comparison the grant size would begin to stacking Nichols against dollars. The lower tiers, the goals are relatively much more attainable given the time periods and questions potentially along for sizable payments without commensurate in the exceptional achievement.
这两个人都建议反对2018年的拨款计划，因为刘易斯快递对于拨款的规模和潜在传送向量存在担忧，指出无论如何与尼科尔斯进行比较，拨款规模都会不断增加。在较低层次上，目标相对容易实现，考虑到时间段和问题，可能会有相当大的支付，但却没有相应的杰出成就。
You had to double the market cap. ISS described the grant value of staggering included that even the challenging and far reaching performance goals do not justify the extraordinary grant grant magnitude.
你必须使市值翻倍。ISS表示，巨大的授予价值包括了挑战性及广泛的绩效目标，但仍不能合理地证明出授予的额外巨大性。
So, okay, there's clear voices opposing this package. Both recommendations expressed concern with Musk's non-Tesla interests. Stockholders criticized the grant noting that Musk's Tesla equity provided sufficient motivation. Who's the stockholders criticized? These are just statements in the record. Linear milestones were inappropriate for an exponential company like Tesla.
所以，好吧，有明确的声音反对这个方案。两份建议均对马斯克在特斯拉以外的利益表示担忧。股东批评了这项津贴，认为马斯克的特斯拉股权已经提供了足够的动力。股东是被批评的对象吗？这些只是记录中的陈述。对于特斯拉这样一个指数型增长的公司来说，线性的里程碑是不合适的。
Five days before the stockholder vote, Musk married and formed the board that the outcome of the stockholder vote was not yet clear. Although initial vote tellers in favor of many big stockholders had not yet voted and their intentions remained unclear. Grant would likely receive approval with a two large Tesla stockholders voting against the ground and the grounds that his size was excessive.
在股东投票日前五天，马斯克结婚并组建董事会，股东投票结果尚未明确。尽管许多大股东的初始投票表明支持，但他们尚未投票，且意图仍不明确。虽有两位大型特斯拉股东因规模过大而反对，但格兰特很可能获得批准。
Musk asked Marin to tell one of the large stockholders is very offended by their action. They choose to vote that way by all means do so. Ask Marin to set up a call with one of the stockholders following the vote during which Musk would convince them to invest from Tesla and any of his companies ever. They are not welcome.
马斯克请马林告诉其中一位大股东他们的行动让他感到非常冒犯。如果他们选择以那种方式投票，那么请他们一定这么做。请马林在投票后安排与其中一位股东进行电话交流，届时马斯克会说服他们不再投资特斯拉和他的任何公司。他们不受欢迎。
It appears that a non-Musical play at Tesla called that stockholder after the vote. Stockholders approved the grant at a special stockholder meeting with 73% of those cast at the meeting excluding Musk and Kimball's ownership. Because Musk owns 22% and Kimball owns a big chunk.
在特斯拉，似乎有一场非音乐剧在投票后使股东感到不安。股东在一次特殊股东会议上批准了这项补助，会议上有73%的投票通过，但不包括马斯克和金布尔的所有权。因为马斯克拥有22%的股份，金布尔拥有相当大的一部分股份。
Events relevant to evaluating the fairness of the grant occurred after stockholders approved the grant. Namely, Tesla described that several grant milestones were greater than 70% probability of achievement. Nearly all the trenches vested Musk got in trouble with the SEC and named himself Technically and blah blah blah blah. Why does this? Okay, it's unclear why the judge mentions this.
股东批准授予提前后，与评估授予公正性相关的事件出现了。具体来说，特斯拉称几个授予里程碑的实现概率超过了70%。几乎所有充值给马斯克的期权都导致了他与美国证券交易委员会的纠纷，他自称技术上发生了一些问题等等。为什么会这样呢？好吧，法官为什么提到这些尚不清楚。
Tesla discloses that several of the grants milestones are probable of achievement. For accounting purposes on March 27, Berg provided a final fair value letter arriving at grant date or fair value of 2.3 billion.
特斯拉透露，一些补助项目的里程碑目标很可能能够实现。为了会计目的，在3月27日，伯格提供了一封最终的公允价值信函，确认了补助日期或公允价值为23亿美元。
How to determine when Tesla was likely to perform its milestones which Tesla needed disclosed to stockholders in its March 31, 2018. Tesla determined that three operational milestones were considered probable achievement which meant they were greater than 70% probability of achievement within approximately one year of the grant date.
如何确定特斯拉在2018年3月31日向股东披露的里程碑可能会在何时达成。特斯拉确定了三个运营里程碑，被认为是有可能在授予日期后的一年内以超过70%的概率实现的。
Oh, wait, wait, what's this here? Tesla's methodology was to determine probability was a set of internal one-year forecast developed one year and three year internal projections on a regular basis. They were not the product of bottom-up forecasting. They were used to drive and motivate rather than plan and Tesla frequently missed its projections. They reflected what Tesla would need to do to reach aggressive goals set by Musk.
哦，等等，等等，这是什么？特斯拉的方法论是通过一套内部一年预测，定期制定一年和三年的内部预测，来确定概率。它们不是从下往上的预测产物。它们被用来推动和激励，而不是计划，特斯拉经常不能达到预期。它们反映了特斯拉需要做些什么来实现马斯克设定的雄心勃勃的目标。
Tesla based the March disclosures on the March 2018 projections, described their projections as extremely aggressive and challenging based on stretch goals and very large risks. Yet Tesla disclosed that the following performance milestones were considered probable of achievement.
特斯拉基于2018年3月的预测进行了3月份的披露，他们将这些预测描述为极具挑战性和激进，基于极高目标和非常大的风险。然而，特斯拉披露了以下性能里程碑被认为有可能实现。
Total revenue, 20 billion, a bit to 1.5 billion, or adjusted a bit to 3 billion. March 31, 10, Q and through the usual disclaimer, probability of needing this disclosure meant that the three operational milestones are 70% probability of achievement.
总收入为200亿，稍微减少到15亿，或稍微调整到30亿。3月31日，10Q报告中经典的免责声明反映了需要进行这项披露的概率，这意味着三个运营里程碑达成的概率为70%。
We should assume that the second to best, okay. I'm just reading through this argument about whether the this is about whether the operational milestones were likely to be achieved. And this is something that you see in the 10Q when they were doing the transfers. Are these likely to be achieved? Grant began investing in 2020 as Tesla's business took off, although Tesla's business performance between 2018 and 2020 fell short of the March 2018 projections. Slightly succeeded. It's projected adjusted a bit for 2018 for tranches vested by the end of 2020 and three more vested the following year as of April 29, 2020, 2011 of the grants 12 tranches had vested as of June 30, 2022, all had all market cap milestones have been achieved.
我们应该假设第二最好，好吗。我只是在阅读关于是否实现运营里程碑的争论。这是当他们进行转让时你在10Q中会看到的东西。这些是否有可能实现？格兰特在特斯拉的业务起飞之际开始投资，尽管特斯拉在2018年至2020年间的业务表现不及2018年3月的预期。稍微成功。根据2020年4月29日的数据，2018年的预期已经适度调整了，到2020年底已经释放了一些分批，并计划在随后一年释放其余的三个，截至2022年6月30日，12个分批中有11个已经释放，市值里程碑也都达到了。
All the bit to milestones have been achieved and three revenue milestones have been achieved with one more deemed problem achievement settlement over the fraud charges over. I think that's the funding secured tweet added new independent directors. Elon stepped down as board chair down home replaced him.
所有里程碑都已经完成，同时也完成了三个收入里程碑，并且还有一个被视为重大成就的欺诈指控解决方案。我认为这个被保证的资金是通过推文增加新的独立董事来确保的。埃隆辞去了董事会主席的职务，由其继任者接任。
I'm not sure why any of this matters. No, this is all there's all this stuff about the SEC settlement about the Techno King change from CEO to Techno King. Then came Twitter. What does any of this have to do with Tesla achieving its goals?
我不确定为什么所有这些都很重要。不，这都只是关于SEC和Techno King的CEO转变的事情。然后又出现了Twitter。但这与特斯拉实现其目标有什么关系呢？
To run out of file this complaint in June 5, 2018. So turn out a file this complaint before all this stuff happened for net of the plaintiff. This is a guy who owns like eight shares of Tesla. This is this is what's called procedural. I think this is called the this litigation. This would be called the procedural history. This is how everything got where we got to. I think we can skip over most of this. I'm just skipping over the procedural stuff so we can get to the.
在2018年6月5日之前，提出这份投诉已经无文件可依。所以在以上所述事件发生之前，原告已经提交了这份关于特斯拉股权的投诉。原告只拥有八股特斯拉的股份。这被称作程序性问题，我认为这称之为诉讼程序的历史。这是我们到达这个阶段的全部过程。我认为我们可以跳过大部分这些程序性的内容，以便我们能进入下一步。
I think we legal analysis claims that awarding the grant constituted a breach of fiduciary duty and fire fander standard governance for two independent reasons because the grant was a conflict or conflicted controller transaction and separately because the grant was approved by a majority conflicted board.
我认为我们的法律分析认为授予该拨款构成了违反受托责任和消防管理标准的违约行为，原因有两个独立的理由：一是该拨款是一个冲突或冲突控制交易，二是该拨款获得了多数冲突董事会的批准。
Okay, so here we get into analysis. Where are we? Are we on page 74? Okay. No, damn it. I don't know why previews messing with me here. I don't know what just happened. How do we lose the. Where are we? Oh, my God. Okay, legal analysis. We're on page 103 out of 201. For parts of the analysis addresses the gating issue of the standard review includes the entire fan or supplies because must exercise control over the grant. Okay, so already I don't agree with this. We have quite a bit of evidence that Deepakahouja Maron. And Aaron Price. Did things and the board did things that Elon didn't direct and that Elon was actually sort of largely hands off of this process. I don't see a lot of evidence that must was hands on controlling this process. Elon's busy with Tesla. He's busy with his other companies. There's some general hints of this is what I want and then the board puts it together.
好的，现在我们开始分析。我们现在在哪里？我们在第74页吗？好的，该死的。我不知道为什么预览让我糊涂。我不知道刚才发生了什么。怎么会丢失控制权？我们在哪里？哦，天哪。好的，法律分析。我们在第201页中的第103页。对于分析中的一部分，它解决了标准审查的控制问题，包括整个风扇或供应商，因为必须对授权行使控制。好的，我已经不同意这个观点了。我们有很多证据表明Deepakahouja Maron和Aaron Price做了一些事情，董事会做了一些事情，这些都不是埃隆指示的，埃隆实际上在这个过程中很少干预。我没有看到很多证据表明Musk主导了这个过程。埃隆忙于特斯拉，忙于他的其他公司。有一些一般性的暗示，这就是我想要的，然后董事会把它组合在一起。
Next addresses defense argument. The stockholder vote shifted the burden on the entire fairness standard. Concluded defendants retain the burden because the stockholder vote was not fully informed. Now, I don't know the Delaware law. Were the stockholders to that be fully informed or they have to be sufficiently informed and that be perfectly informed. Does the proxy have to be perfect or is it have to be reasonably close? I don't know the standard. I don't I don't claim to know the standard.
下一个问题是针对辩护论点的地址。股东投票将责任转移到了整体公平标准上。被告被认定保留了责任，因为股东投票并没有得到充分的资讯。现在，我不了解特拉华州的法律。股东是否需要被充分了解情况，或者他们只需被充分了解并足够了解情况？代理是否必须完美，还是只需接近完美？我不清楚标准是什么。我不声称了解这个标准。
Then if I was the grant under the entire fan and standard including the defendants failed to prove the grant was entirely fair. Last turns the remedy. And I don't understand how the remedy is Elon gets nothing. I don't understand that. Like how does Elon get nothing?
然后，如果我是授予方，在整个辩论过程中，包括被告方未能证明授予是完全公平的情况下，最后转向救济措施。而我不理解的是，这个救济措施是埃隆（马斯克）一无所获。我无法理解这一点。就像埃隆怎么一无所获呢？
So we got a hundred pages to go. Let me see where we are here. Are people still watching? I don't even know. Are people still watching? How do I know how many people are watching? 98 viewers. Okay. 98 people watching. We'll keep going.
所以我们还剩下一百页要翻译。让我看看我们现在在哪里。还有人在看吗？我都不知道。还有人在看吗？我怎么知道有多少人在看呢？98个观众。好的。有98个人在观看。我们继续吧。
The entire fairness standard applies. Wait, wait, wait, sorry. The entire fairness standard applies because Musk is a controller. When determining whether corporate fiduciaries have reached their duties. Okay. Conflicted controller transaction. The entire fairness applies because half the directors approve the grant lacked independence from Musk. Musk plaintiff wins on the first argument. Musk is a controller because he wins on the first argument. And Yoshi's fiduciary duties on those are controller corporation. The defendant holds a mathematical majority of the corporation's voting power. He doesn't do that. Musk only controls 22% so he lacked mathematical voting control.
整个公平标准适用。等等，等等，抱歉。整个公平标准适用是因为马斯克是控制者。确定企业受托人是否履行了职责时，需要考虑这一点。好的。有利害关系的控制者交易。整个公平标准适用是因为有一半的董事对授予马斯克的权益缺乏独立性。马斯克原告在第一个论点上获胜。马斯克是控制者，因为他在第一个论点上获胜。而约翰尼对那些控制者公司的受托责任。被告持有公司表决权的绝对多数。但他并未这样做。马斯克仅控制22%，因此他缺乏数学上的表决控制能力。
Only one method of establishing controller status can establish controller status by demonstrating the defendant exercises control over the business affairs of the corporation. This purpose of plaintiff need not argue the defendant exercise general control of the business affairs of the corporation. Showing of general control is sufficient to establish fiduciary status. A plaintiff can establish fiduciary status by demonstrating defendant control the particular transaction issue referring to refer to his transaction specific control. Let's show that a defendant or group of defendants exercise sufficient influence that they as a practical matter know differently situation than majority voting control. Ownership of a sufficient equity significant equity stake right to designate directors decisional rules and governing documents. Ability exercise outsized influence in the boardroom such as.
只有一种建立控制者地位的方法能够通过证明被告在公司的业务事务方面行使控制来建立控制者地位。原告的目的不需要争论被告在公司的业务事务方面行使总体控制权。展示总体控制权就足以确立受信托地位。原告可以通过展示被告控制特定交易事项来确立受信托地位，指的是指他的特定交易控制权。让我们展示被告或一组被告行使足够的影响力，以实际情况比多数投票权控制情况更为了解。拥有足够的股权、重要股权份额以及指定董事决策规则和管理文件的权利。能够在董事会上行使过度影响力，例如。
A plaintiff must show that the stockholder exercised actual control over the board of directors during the course of a particular transaction. I don't know. I read the description and it sounds like the board made a lot of decisions on their own, came back to Elon, said this is what we want to do and Elon said okay but give me less. Both general control and transaction specific control call for holistic evaluation of sources of influence. Plaintiff advances theories of both general transaction specific control. Whether must help trans as specific controller spec of the grant.
原告必须证明，股东在特定交易过程中对董事会实际控制权进行了行使。我不知道。我读了描述，感觉董事会自己做了很多决定，然后回到了埃隆（马斯克），说这是我们想要做的事情，埃隆说好，但给我更少一点。无论是一般控制还是交易特定控制，都需要对影响来源进行全面评估。原告提出了一般交易特定控制的理论。对于必须帮助将交易视为特定控制者规范的变动。
Planets argument that must control test the mic concert and contra sense of déjà vu. This is because Delaware courts are confronted this precise issue before in a prior lawsuit. Although the Solar City case resulted in three opinions, none of them included a finding concerning must as status as a controller. Question of whether must controls test lines less proven evasive is as good a time as any to run it to ground so once more into the breach dear friends once more this is the judge. I'm going to say making yourself more important than you are although you turns out you're very important but you're basically saying. Once more into the breach you're making yourself a is that a Shakespeare in character I think that Shakespeare yeah Shakespeare Henry the fifth. So the judge the judge is apparently Henry the fifth.
这段话的意思大致是，行星的论点是必须控制对麦克风音浪和反对 déjà vu（即前几次已经出现过的情况）进行测试。这是因为特拉华州的法院之前在一起诉讼中曾遇到过这个具体问题。尽管太阳城案件产生了三个意见，但其中没有一个涉及对must作为控制者身份的发现。关于must是否控制测试线路的问题，到底是不是令人迷惑的证据，这是一个恰当的时机来彻底调查，所以请再次冲破难关，亲爱的朋友们，这是法官说的。我要说的是，你们自己把自己看得比实际重要，尽管后来证明你们确实很重要，但你们基本上是在说。再次冲破难关，你们是在把自己变成莎士比亚的角色吗？我想是莎士比亚，亨利五世。所以法官显然是亨利五世。
The analysis begins by discussing musk stock ownership significant. We'll did the maximum influence a manager can have over the company is tied to three of the eight directors Campbell grasses and Murdoch re under those directors beholden to him but Campbell didn't vote. With must they provide has the board given turbets and departure rest of the judiciary's active beholden to musk in the process leading to the grant. The rest of the fiduciaries active beholden to musk in the process leading to the grant. I saw no evidence of this in anything that I read that the rest of the fiduciaries active beholden to must this is a conclusion with zero evidence from anything in the in the opinion so far in the decision so far allowing must to dictate the time in the case of the judge.
分析从讨论马斯克股权的重要性开始。我们将了解到，对公司的最大影响力与8位董事中的三位--坎贝尔、格拉斯和默多克--紧密相连，这些董事对马斯克有所归属感。然而，坎贝尔并没有投票。在马斯克给予董事会安排和离职事务的过程中，剩下的司法人员都对马斯克有所归属感。我在阅读的所有内容中都没有看到这一点的证据，也没有见到剩下的受托人对马斯克有所归属感。这是一个毫无根据的结论，迄今为止在任何观点或决定中都没有证据显示剩下的受托人对马斯克有所归属感，也没有允许马斯克在法官案件中决定时间的证据。
Under Salazar head of the congress Maya has a considerable pull in somewhere wha ok And I would say the evidence is that he did not control this transaction. He said what he wanted, and he didn't get what he wanted. All all SQL, a relatively larger block size should make an inference of actual control more likely. 40% of block holder has the same effective power in most circumstances of holder mathematical majority. Musk wields significant influence over Tesla by bridge with stock holdings. Yes. The holder of a 21.9% block favors a particular outcome. And the holder will win as long as a holder of approximately one in three shares vote the same way. But he didn't vote. By contrast, an opponent must garner approximately 71 for the un-presented, the unaffiliated shares. But he didn't vote. He and Kimball didn't vote. They didn't vote their shares.
在Salazar掌握国会的领导下，Maya在某个地方有很大的影响力。我想说的是证据表明他并没有控制这笔交易。他说了自己想要的，但却没有得到想要的结果。在所有情况下，一个相对较大规模的区块大小应该更有可能推断出实际的控制权。在大多数情况下，拥有40%区块的持有人具有相同的有效权力，数学上占多数。马斯克通过股权在特斯拉公司拥有重要的影响力。是的，持有21.9%区块的持有人倾向于特定的结果。只要大约三分之一的股份持有者以相同的方式投票，持有人就会获胜。但他没有投票。相比之下，对手必须获得大约71%的未呈现出来的、不附属的股份。但他没有投票。他和金鹏没有投票。他们没有行使他们的股权。
A person whose owner of 20% or more of outstanding voting stock of any corporation shall be presumed to have control of such entity in the absence of proof. I think we can agree that Elon controls Tesla. The point is he didn't control the transaction.
在没有证据的情况下，拥有任何公司20%或更多的流通股票的所有人将被视为对该实体具有控制权。我认为我们可以同意埃隆控制着特斯拉。重点是他并没有控制交易。
The significant block operating junction with super majority voting requirement for any amendment Tesla's bylaws. Okay, again, we're talking about whether we know he controls the company. Questions whether he controlled the transaction. And you know, his 22% block gives him a sizable leg up for stockholders, but he didn't vote. He and Kimball didn't vote.
这个重要的区块操作节点需要超多数投票才能修改特斯拉公司章程。好的，再次强调，我们讨论的是我们是否知道他控制着公司。质疑他是否控制这笔交易。虽然他持有22%的股份给了他在股东中的很大优势，但他没有投票。他和金贝尔都没有投票。
This case involved a failed bylaw amendment, but that's not the situation. So must stockholders but considering the other additional control, boardroom and managerial supremacy. Individual might hold high status roles or an individual might have other key executive or managerial roles. An individual can wield influence if he can interfere with or a kibosh management decisions. An individual will have substantial influence if he can replace management. Must wield considerable power in the boardroom by virtue of his high status roles and managerial supremacy. Indeed describing musts role at Tesla's high status would be a dramatic understatement. At relevant times occupy the most powerful trifective roles, managerial authority.
这个案件涉及未能修改的法规修正案，但这并不是当前的情况。对于股东来说，必须考虑其他附加控制措施、董事会和管理层的霸权。个体可能担任高级职务，或者可能有其他关键的执行或管理职位。如果一个个体能够干涉或阻止管理决策，那么他就可以施加影响力。如果一个个体能够取代管理层，他将具有重大的影响力。根据他在高级职务和管理层霸权方面的地位，必须在董事会中拥有相当大的权力。事实上，描述必须在特斯拉的高级地位将是一个严重低估。在相关时间内担任最强大的三重职权，即管理权限。
Look, I think we all agree that Elon controls Tesla. But that doesn't say he controlled the transaction. This is like the judge is spending an inordinate amount of time establishing that Elon controls Tesla, which we agree. That doesn't mean that Elon controlled the transaction, which is the question to issue. Yes, he has huge influences member of management in the boardroom. Superstar CEO, yes, yes, he is all that. Superstar him is relevant to controller status because the belief in CEO singular importance shifts the balance of power between management and the boardroom and the stockholders. When directors believe that you CEO is uniquely critical to the corporation's mission, even independent actors are likely to be on duly deferential.
看，我认为我们都同意埃隆控制特斯拉。但这并不能说明他控制了交易。就好像法官花了过多的时间来确认埃隆控制特斯拉一样，这一点我们是同意的。这并不意味着埃隆控制了交易，这才是问题的关键。是的，他在董事会中是管理层的巨大影响成员。超级明星CEO，是的，是的，他就是这样。超级明星与控制者地位有关，因为对CEO的独特重要性的信仰会改变管理层、董事会和股东之间的权力平衡。当董事们相信你的CEO对公司的使命至关重要时，即使是独立的行为者也可能过度顺从。
Yeah, when he's when he's severely important to the company, when he's uniquely critical to the company, then you got to compensate him for that. Right? They believe that letting the CEO go would be harmful to the company and that alienating the CEO might have a similar effect. Well, yeah. Creates a distortion field. Uh huh. All this is true. But again, we're we're we're he's a superstar. See, all this is true and obvious. And in this case, the fiduciaries were not staunchly independent quite the opposite as discussed next.
是的，当他对公司非常重要，当他对公司具有独特的重要性时，你必须对他进行补偿。对吧？他们相信让CEO离职会对公司有害，并且疏远他可能产生类似的效果。嗯，是的，会产生扭曲的影响。嗯，这一切都是真实的。但是，我们的超级明星，所有这些都是显而易见的。在这种情况下，受托人并不是坚定独立的，正好相反，正如下面所讨论的那样。
That's so director like the independence of he or she is so beholden to an interested director that his or a distraction to stress and be sterilized nine directors served on the board of relevant times. Jervitsen can be excluded given his early departure. Musk was one for his brother or another. That's one fourth of the relevant directors. Elon and his brother are not relevant directors because they didn't vote in the transaction. The other six had varying degrees of ties of Musk for compensation committee members. Aaron Price bust down home in Gracias and then turns to Murdoch and Johnson Rice. Gracias had most extensive business and personal dealings in Musk and Kimball. Interest worth over $1 billion in Musk and controlled entities, which is pretty much fucking Tesla. He has just as much of a relationship with Tesla as he had with Elon. Yeah, I mean, I agree that Gracias is arguably not an independent director, but you know, saying it's because he has a billion dollars of investments in Musk companies when it's pretty much all Tesla's kind of silly. Gracias is business ties to Musk standing alone supporting the company. And that's why he's a big fan of his business. Gracias is business ties to Musk standing alone supporting finding that Gracias lacked independence from Musk.
这就像导演对他或她的独立性非常依赖的一个感兴趣的导演。他或她的分心和压力把他或她削弱到只有九个导演在相关时间内坐在董事会上。由于他提前离职，Jervitsen可以被排除在外。Musk是他兄弟或其他人。这是相关董事的四分之一。Elon和他的兄弟不是相关董事，因为他们没有在交易中投票。其他六个董事与Musk在薪酬委员会成员中有不同程度的联系。Aaron Price去了Gracias的家，然后转向了Murdoch和Johnson Rice。Gracias在Musk和Kimball方面有最广泛的业务和个人交往，与Musk及其控制的实体价值超过10亿美元，这几乎就是特斯拉。他与特斯拉的关系与他与Elon的关系一样深。是的，我的意思是，我同意Gracias显然不是一个独立的董事，但是你知道，如果说他在Musk公司有10亿美元的投资，而这几乎全部是特斯拉的话，是有点可笑的。Gracias与Musk的商业联系单独支持这家公司。这就是他为什么是他的商业信徒。Gracias与Musk的商业联系单独支持认为Gracias缺乏对Musk的独立性。
Okay, so all right. So Gracias is lacks independence. Aaron Price also had extensive business and personal relations with the Musk. Interest worth at least $75 billion in Musk controlled companies other than Tesla and invested in Kimball's business ventures.
好的，所以说嗯。所以格拉西亚斯缺乏独立性。亚伦·普赖斯还与马斯克有广泛的商业和个人关系。他在除了特斯拉以外由马斯克控制的公司中的利益价值至少有750亿美元，并投资了金博尔的商业冒险。
Long standing personal and professional relations with Musk and Kimball that Aaron Price has been. See, he's leaving out Aaron Price's history as like one of the kings of Central Capital in Silicon Valley. Like what about Aaron Price's other connections? Yeah, he's deeply connected with Musk, but he's deeply connected with a lot of people in Silicon Valley. I forget what Aaron Price's background is. He's sort of like the God of venture capital in Silicon Valley or one of the leading voices for his venture capital in Silicon Valley. He's got significant connections to a lot of people. Are his connections to Elon outside compared to his connections to other people in Silicon Valley? Not addressed. That's basically saying that nobody in Silicon Valley can be independent if you go with Aaron Price.
长期以来，Aaron Price一直与Musk和Kimball建立着个人和职业关系。看，这篇文章忽略了Aaron Price在硅谷中心资本王国的历史地位。Aaron Price还有其他的联系吗？是的，他与Musk紧密联系，但他也与硅谷的许多人有着密切关系。我忘记了Aaron Price的背景是什么。他有点像硅谷风险投资之神，或是硅谷风险投资领域的主要声音之一。他与很多人有着重要的联系。那么他与埃隆的联系相比他与硅谷其他人的联系如何呢？文章没有提到。基本上可以说，如果选择了Aaron Price，那就意味着在硅谷没有人可以独立。
See, I'm going to disagree with this point. I think Aaron Price is independent and the judge is taking an odd snapshot of Aaron Price only looking into Aaron Price's involvement with Elon's companies and not looking at it in the scale of everything else Aaron Price does. My general sense is that Aaron Price... I got to look this up. I don't want to pull this out of my ass. I'm going to talk about the business. Let's just see.
我要反对这一点。我认为亚伦·普莱斯是独立的，法官只是从亚伦·普莱斯与埃隆的公司的联系方面进行了奇怪的快照，并没有整体考虑亚伦·普莱斯所做的其他一切。我总的感觉是，亚伦·普莱斯...我得查一下。我不想胡乱说。我要谈谈这个生意。让我们看看吧。
Founder and managing partner of DBL partners, a leading impact investing venture capital firm recognized leader in the venture capital industry having served on the board executive committee and annual meeting chairman of the natural venture capital association currently serves as the president of the Western Association of venture capitalists as chairman of the VC network, the largest and most active platform venture capital organization awarded the 2018 NACD directorship 100 for being one of the most influential leaders in the boardroom and corporate governance community named one of the top 50 most influential men under 45 in 2007 and 2014 inducted into the international green industry Hall of Fame. Served for several years as chairman of Silicon Valley technology innovation entrepreneurship forum, founder and chairman of the one of the most prominent.
DBL投资合作伙伴的创始人和管理合伙人，是一家领先的影响力投资风险投资公司。在风险投资行业中享有盛誉，曾担任自然风险投资协会董事会执行委员会和年会主席，目前担任西部风险投资家协会的主席，VC网络的主席，该组织是最大、最活跃的风险投资平台组织。因在董事会和公司治理界有着深远影响力而获得2018年NACD董事会100荣誉。2007年和2014年被评为50位最有影响力的45岁以下男性之一，并入选国际绿色行业名人堂。担任硅谷科技创新创业论坛主席多年，是其中最杰出的创始人和主席之一。
I don't see any of this in the judges decision. You can look at ir tesla.com corporate Ira Aaron prize. Several industry boards chairman of Silicon Valley technology innovation entrepreneurship for some. Sir for many years in the environment. We're finally work for women entrepreneurs like Ira Aaron prize is is a big time figure in the VC industry and to say he's too close to Elon based solely on his really on his really on his it basically what do we have? I mean look at this extensive business and personal relationships with the most interest worth at least $75 million in Musk controlled companies other than Tesla. So he invested in SpaceX and invested in Campbell's business ventures. What else is he invested in? How many other investments does this guy have? This guy's a VC. He's probably got hundreds of investments, maybe even a thousand investments in other companies. What percentage of his net worth is tied into this. And you know look he owns a lot of Tesla stocks. So it's a big chunk of his net worth but outside of Tesla what are his investments add up to compared to everything else. And where's the description of the personal relationship? He went to Kimball's wedding. Is that all you got? And their friends. I don't see a lot here.
我在裁判的决定中没有看到这一切。你可以访问ir.tesla.com的公司IRA Aaron奖。几个硅谷科技创新创业业界的董事长都是如此。多年来，这位先生一直在这个环境下工作。最终我们为像IRA Aaron奖这样的女性创业者工作了。在风险投资行业，他是一个重要人物，说他与埃隆关系太亲密，仅仅基于他实际上拥有什么？我是说看看他与其他很多价值至少7500万美元的马斯克控制公司（除了特斯拉之外）之间的广泛商业和个人关系。他投资了SpaceX并投资了Kimball的商业计划。他还投资了别的什么？这个人是个风投家。他可能在其他公司有数百甚至一千项投资。他的净资产中有多少与此相关呢？而且你知道的，他拥有大量的特斯拉股票。所以这是他的净资产的一大部分，但除了特斯拉之外，他的投资与其他一切相比又是多少呢？个人关系的描述在哪里？他去了Kimball的婚礼。这些就是你的全部证据吗？他们只是朋友而已。我在这里没看到很多的东西。
The same is true of dental and bust. They're most significant potentially compromising comprising factors the compensation he's received as a Tesla director for dent. This is Tesla. That's their connection to Tesla not their connection to Elon. Outsize direct but plaintiff does not argue that must establish Boston Dennholm's compensation. So as the random beholden. He's claiming that Robin Dennholm and busts are not independent directors. Okay. That's that's shocking to me. They're independent of Elon. They may be they may be deeply connected to Tesla when the company grows as much as it does in you get options. Obviously becomes a large share of your net worth.
牙科和胸部也是如此。它们是潜在的最重要的妥协因素，是作为特斯拉董事为 dent 所接受的补偿的组成部分。这就是特斯拉。这是他们与特斯拉的联系，而不是与埃隆的联系。原告没有争论必须证明波士顿 · 丹霍姆的补偿。他声称罗宾 · 丹霍姆和busts不是独立的董事。好的。这让我震惊。他们与埃隆是独立的。当公司像特斯拉一样发展壮大时，他们可能与特斯拉有着紧密的联系。显然，这些股票期权成为你净资产的重要组成部分。
Murak lacked independence due to personal connection with Musk a long time friend of Musk before he joined the board. They repeatedly vacationed together with respect to families. And they were very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very becoming Delaware courts consider not only the director's relationship, but also how they acted with respect to that party. Directors with strong tries to control or may doesn't demonstrate their independence. Directors without strong individual ties to a controller may fall victim to a controlled mindset.
Murak缺乏独立性，因为他与Musk有个人关系，他在加入董事会之前一直是Musk的好朋友。他们经常一起度假，关系非常非常非常非常非常非常非常非常非常非常非常非常非常非常非常非常非常非常非常非常非常非常非常非常非常非常非常非常非常非常非常非常非常非常非常非常密切。特拉华州法院不仅考虑董事与关系方的关系，还考虑他们如何以此为依据行事。试图控制的董事或许并不显示独立性。没有与控制人有强烈个人联系的董事可能会陷入受控思维的困境。
A question of whether the large block roller has control may be relevant. It's disinjured stockholders. Whether the merger was approved by uncoarst independent director seeking solid advance the interest of the corporation and its disinterested stockholders rather than by supine servants of an overweening master. There's no greater evidence of must status as a transaction-specific controller than the board's postured toward must during the process that led to the grant. Put simply need that the compensation committee nor the board acted in the best interest of the company when negotiating must compensation plan. In fact, there's barely any evidence of negotiations at all rather than negotiate against must with the mindset of a third party.
在大型区块滚筒是否具有控制权的问题可能是相关的。这对库存股东来说是一种伤害。该合并是否获得了寻求坚实增进公司利益和不偏不倚的股东利益的独立董事的批准，而不是被那些对傲慢的主人低头屈从的人所批准。在导致授予过程中，董事会对公司特定交易控制者的态度是没有更大的证据。简单地说，薪酬委员会和董事会在谈判达成对must薪酬计划时并未代表公司最大利益行事。实际上，几乎没有谈判的证据，而是将must视为第三方进行谈判。
The compensation committee worked alongside him almost as an advisory body. Multiple aspects of the process reveal must control. What were they supposed to do? Were they supposed to like say, hey, Elon, we got to be adversarial. We're going to look at bringing in another CEO. They said it was a collaborative process. It wasn't an adversarial process. That doesn't mean he controlled it. Must control the timing. I went through this before he did not control the time. He did delay it. He delayed it at one point. And then there was another delay that was not obviously his delay because they needed to talk to large shareholders. You know, the fact that he delayed the process, I don't see why that's a big deal. He didn't rush him. He gave him time.
董事会补偿委员会几乎作为一个咨询机构与他一起工作。此过程的多个方面显示出必须掌握控制权。他们应该做什么？他们应该像说：“嘿，埃隆，我们必须对抗，我们要考虑引进另一位CEO。”他们表示这是一个协作的过程，不是对抗性的过程。这并不意味着他控制了它。 必须掌控时间。在他之前，我也经历过这个，他并不控制时间。他确实拖延了一段时间。然后又有一次延迟，显然并非他的错，因为他们需要与大股东交谈。你知道，他拖延了这个过程，我不明白为什么这是个大问题。他并没有催促他，他给了他时间。
Must unilaterally set the time time or made last-minute proposals of the board prior to six out of the 10 border compensation committee meetings. They continue in the game. I mean, I agree that he delayed the timing. I don't agree that he controlled the timing. There was no negotiation over the size of the grant. The most striking the mission from this process, the absence of any evidence of adversarial negotiations between the board and must concerning the size of the grant. Hey, we agree. It wasn't adversarial. They openly said it wasn't adversarial. But they did reduce the package. He lowered his ask. He was not a compensation committee consider it a variety of award sizes.
在10次边界补偿委员会会议中的6次之前，必须单方面设定时间或提出临时提议。他们继续参与游戏。我的意思是，我同意他拖延了时间。但我不同意他掌控了时间。关于拨款金额，并没有进行任何协商。在这个过程中最引人注目的任务是，董事会和必须之间没有任何对抗性的谈判证据，关于拨款金额的大小。嘿，我们同意了。这并不对抗。他们公开表示这并非对抗。但他们确实减少了套餐的价格。他降低了要求。薪酬委员会考虑了各种奖励规模。
Presentation value of a 15% award only because anybody can figure out that that 7.5% is half the value of 15%. Come on. And 10% is two thirds of 15%. You need a valuation for that? Fuck's sake. When Marin received Musk's new offer, compared to the Muslim Regional proposal, not any alternatives. Musk's 15 transverse locked in as the operating assumption. You know, it changed from 15 to 12 to 10 and there's no evidence that Elon pushed any of those changes. Or to 15 to 10 to 12 or whatever. Aaron Price avoided saying that he or anyone else negotiate with a Musk about the market cap increase again merely describing the changes that took place.
一个15%的奖励的展示价值仅仅因为任何人都能计算出7.5%是15%的一半。拜托，10%是15%的三分之二。你还需要估值吗？该死。当马林收到马斯克的新提议时，与穆斯林区域提案以及其他替代方案相比，15%的比例被锁定为操作假设。你知道的，它从15变成12再变成10，没有证据表明埃隆推动了这些变化。或者从15变成10再变成12，或者其他任何变化。亚伦·普赖斯回避了与马斯克关于市值增长再次进行任何谈判的说法，仅仅描述了发生的变化。
I don't understand like. Do they have to go to Elon and say, hey, we're raising the market cap 100 billion and he wants us. I don't like this as well. That's what they're doing. And he wants us. Okay. Does that make it a negotiation? It's not adversarial. That doesn't mean it's not a negotiation. It doesn't have to be negotiation. This is what we think is the appropriate compensation. There's no meaningful negotiation over the other terms of the grant. Yeah, they impose the other terms of the grant. And Elon said, okay.
我不明白这样的做法。他们是否需要去找埃隆说：“嘿，我们要增加市值1000亿，他希望我们这样做。”我也不喜欢这样做。这就是他们正在做的事情。他希望我们这样做。好吧。这算作谈判吗？这不是对抗性的。这并不意味着它不是一次谈判。它不必是一次谈判。这是我们认为适当的补偿方式。关于授予的其他条件没有任何实质性的谈判。是的，他们强加了授予的其他条件。埃隆说，好吧。
There was no effort to keep Musk engaged despite a significant time commitments. Tell it where I recognize that asking the controlling stockholder consider alternative options can change the negotiating dynamic. Whether Musk should commit a level of time to test that was a planned topic discussion. None of the participants raised the issue. Musk, the issue was not raised in this compensation structure because the idea was silly. Or did not ask for such a requirement as that would have been like saying goodbye to Elon. Okay. If any claim must go to rejected such restrictions, but the court will never know because the committee and its adverse advisors never had the gumption to even give it the weakest of tries. He said, I'm not doing it.
尽管马斯克投入了大量的时间，却没有努力让他参与其中。我承认，要求控股股东考虑替代方案可能会改变谈判的动态。关于马斯克是否应该投入一定的时间进行测试，这是计划中的讨论议题。但是没有任何参与者提出这个问题。关于这种报酬结构，马斯克认为这个想法很荒谬。或者说，没有要求这样的要求，因为那就像是在跟埃隆说再见了。好了。如果有任何要求被拒绝的限制，但法庭永远也不会知道，因为委员会及其对立的顾问们甚至没有勇气去尝试一下最微弱的一次。他说，我不会这样做。
No benchmarking analysis compared to proposed compensation plan plans of comparable. There are no, there's nothing comparable. We agree. We know there's nothing comparable. So there was no benchmarking of the plan.
没有将提议的补偿计划与可比较的计划进行基准分析。没有可比较的计划。我们同意。我们知道没有可比较的计划，所以也没有对该计划进行基准分析。
Defendants, profit reasons for not performing a traditional benchmarking study. Offered reasons, but each rank hollow. Argued the board considered a lot of data that all fit with the overall bucket of benchmarking throughout the process. Information about other CEOs. One of the slides list the largest CEO pay packages in 2016. But no one contends that this constituted benchmarking analysis.
被告提出了不进行传统基准研究的盈利原因，但每个原因都站不住脚。辩称董事会在整个过程中考虑了大量与总体基准一致的数据。包括其他首席执行官的信息。其中一张幻灯片列出了2016年最高的首席执行官薪酬套餐。但没有人认为这构成了基准分析。
Brown also testified it would have been difficult to find comparable companies for a benchmarking study. It could have developed a peer group using some judgment. More telling the brown took the position to benchmark was unnecessary because the award would be too large for useful comparison. He had a good idea of what would happen if they performed a traditional benchmarking study that it wasn't going to be useful information to be in the committee. Because the grant was so divorced from the market for comparable executives.
布朗还证明了，很难找到可用于基准研究的可比公司。他可以使用一些判断力来建立一个同行群体。更重要的是，布朗认为进行基准研究是没有必要的，因为奖金金额太大，不能进行有用的比较。他对如果进行传统的基准研究会发生什么有着很好的想法，即它将不会提供有用的信息给委员会。因为该奖金与可比高管市场相去甚远。
Right. Traditional benchmarking is inept if the company's executives and plans are not comparable. That's a hard sell. Must job was the same as ever. The other public company CEO improved earnings and create value. Yeah, not 12x. How many companies CEOs are tasked with 10xing the company and receiving no money if it doesn't happen?
没错。如果公司的高管和计划不可比较，传统的基准测试是无能的。这很难说服别人。我的工作和以往一样。其他上市公司的CEO提高了收益并创造了价值。是的，不是10倍。有多少公司的CEO被要求把公司扩大10倍，如果没有实现就不拿薪水？
Benchmarking would have informed the decision makers of the magnitude of the difference between the grant and market comparable. They told value. The value was $2.6 billion or $2.3 billion. In the end, the defense witnesses said it all to the lead on the grant for the compensation.
基准评估将会告知决策者津贴与市场行情之间的差距有多大。他们说出了这个价值。价值为26亿美元或23亿美元。最后，辩护证人将这一切都告诉了领导者，以决定津贴的补偿金额。
The primary goal of the team is to describe the process. None of the processes in our complaints and negotiations. Each form is a form of collaboration with Musk. Basically, what the judge is saying is that board members have to be hostile to the CEO in negotiating his compensation package.
How do you have these? How do you have adversarial negotiations when you don't have an alternative CEO? How are you supposed to have adversarial negotiations? How is that supposed to work? The judge is saying, right here, they did not exalt, it was a cooperative and collaborative process. Running a company in a cooperative and collaborative way rather than an adversarial way is apparently against Delaware law.
团队的主要目标是描述这个过程。我们在投诉和谈判中没有任何一个过程。每个表格都是与马斯克合作的一种形式。基本上，法官的意思是在谈判中，董事会成员必须对首席执行官持敌对态度，来讨论他的薪酬计划。
你怎么这么说？当你没有替代首席执行官时，你如何进行对抗性谈判？你应该如何展开对抗性谈判呢？法官的意思是，在这里他们并没有对抗，而是合作和协作的过程。以合作和协作的方式经营一家公司，显然违反了特拉华州的法律。
The defendants bore the burden, which I disagree with. The defendants bore the burden of proving the grant was entirely fair because Musk's exercise transastic or civic control. I don't agree with that finding. Entire fairness is a standard of review. So this is the important conclusion. They have to prove that the stockholder vote was fully informed. The price of all material information, omitted of fact is material, only when there's a substantial, an omitted fact is material, only when there's a substantial likelihood that a reasonable shareholder would consider it important deciding how to vote.
被告承担了责任，而我不同意这一点。被告需要承担证明授权完全公平的负担，因为马斯克的行使了超越交易或公民控制的权力。我不同意这个结论。完全公平是一种审查标准。因此，这是一个重要的结论。他们必须证明股东投票是完全知情的。所有被省略的事实都是重要的信息，只有在合理股东有重大可能性认为它在决定如何投票时很重要的情况下，被省略的事实才是重要的。
For its must balance, the benefits of additional disclosure against the risk that insufficient and significant information made to loot potentially valuable information. Landists advanced many arguments for why the stockholder vote was not fully informed. Two or clear winners, the arrest was established. The proxy failed to disclose the compensation to fail to disclose the compensation committee members potential conflicts and omitted material information concerning the process.
为了保持平衡，必须权衡额外披露的好处和不足的风险，以防止对潜在有价值信息的掠夺。土地主义者提出了许多论点，解释为什么股东投票没有得到充分的信息。两个明确的胜者是被确立的逮捕。代理人未披露赔偿失败，也未披露补偿委员会成员潜在的利益冲突，并省略了关于该过程的重要信息。
The defendants sought to prove otherwise and they generally contend this. Look, look, we all know we all knew that Campbell was his brother. We all knew that Grazius was a board member of SpaceX and close to Elon. We didn't need a proxy to tell us that. I don't know. I'm like, if I follow the company, is it that the proxy has to tell us stuff we already know? Are there shareholders who didn't know that Campbell was Elon's brother? Failed to disclose any of the compensation committee members actual or potential conflicts with respect to must. Frequently describes them as independent. So, you know, is there a fair point that Grazius isn't independent? I think so. I think there's a fair point that Grazius is not an independent director. Is that material is an important? I don't think so. I don't think the other directors are not independent.
被告试图证明相反，并且他们普遍这样主张。看啊，看啊，我们都知道坎贝尔是他的兄弟。我们都知道格拉齐乌斯是SpaceX的董事会成员，并且与埃隆关系密切。我们不需要通过代理人告诉我们这些。我不知道。我是说，如果我关注这家公司，代理人需要告诉我们我们已经知道的东西吗？是否有股东不知道坎贝尔是埃隆的兄弟？未能披露薪酬委员会成员与招股必需有任何实际或潜在冲突。频繁地形容他们是独立的。所以你知道，格拉齐乌斯不独立，这是一个公平的观点吗？我认为是的。格拉齐乌斯不是独立董事是公平的观点。这样的事情重要吗？我不认为如此。我认为其他董事都是独立的。
And I don't understand the determination that like Robin Denholm and Aaron Price, you know, the way the facts are done about Aaron Price leaving out everything else he does and just focusing on what he's done with Tesla and SpaceX and a couple other companies maybe. And Campbell misses a lot.
我不太理解类似罗宾·丹霍姆和亚伦·普赖斯那样坚定的决心，你知道的，关于亚伦·普赖斯的一切都是基于他在特斯拉和SpaceX以及其他几家公司的业绩，而忽略了他其他方面的表现。而坎贝尔则忽略了很多情况。
Most relationships with Aaron Price and Grazius gave rise. I mean, I can see the argument about Grazius. I don't see it about Aaron Price.
大多数与Aaron Price和Grazius的关系产生了争议。我的意思是，我能理解关于Grazius的争议。但对于Aaron Price，我并不理解。
Proxy just flows the test the director compensation policy, which is one potential source of conflict. Discuss some potential source of conflict such as buses. Ten year at solar city and Aaron Price and Grazius. And so it is. It does disclose their investments in SpaceX. But it doesn't disclose Grazius and Aaron Price's personal and other business relationships with what wait a minute. What what other. What other business relations. I mean, yes, Grazius and Aaron, like what did Aaron, Aaron Price's his friend. You work this closely together on a whole bunch of things. You're going to be friends. I don't.
代理只是按照测试董事薪酬政策的流程进行操作，这是一种潜在的冲突来源。讨论一些潜在的冲突来源，比如公交车。表示十年的太阳城以及亚伦·普莱斯和格拉齐斯。所以是这样的。虽然它披露了他们对SpaceX的投资，但没有披露格拉齐斯和亚伦·普莱斯与其他业务关系以及个人关系。等一下，另外还有什么。哦，还有其他的业务关系。我的意思是，是的，格拉齐斯和亚伦，亚伦和他是朋友。你们在很多事情上都很密切合作，肯定会成为朋友。我不知道。
Also sought to prove that disclosure, the potential conflicts was unnecessary because it wrongly obliged him to characterize the conduct the way to admit wrongdoing. Proxy could have discussed the relevant relationships while stating the board did not view them as a serious impediments independence thereby allowing stockholders to make their own assessment. What defendants were not free to do was take the position of stockholders had no right to know this important information. Okay.
试图证明披露潜在冲突是不必要的，因为这样会错误地让他必须将行为归类为承认错误。代理人本可以在陈述时讨论相关的关系，同时表示董事会并不视其为严重限制独立性，从而允许股东自行评估。被告方不能采取的立场是认为股东没有知道这些重要信息的权利。好的。
The process disclosures. The proxy does not disclose the level of control that must exercise over the process is okay. So I again, I don't agree here that must exercise that much control over the process. The fact that he made the initial offer. The fact that he changed like I don't I don't see that that is significant.
这段话的意思是：流程公开后，并没有透露必须对流程行使多少控制。所以我再次表示，我不同意必须对流程行使那么多控制。他提出初步报价的事实，以及他改变态度的事实，我不认为这是重要的。
Park is parties focus on one specific omission does not disclose the April 9 conversation between Muskin Aaron, prize. With the 2012 performance award nearing completion, the board engaged in more than six months of active and ongoing discussions regarding a new compensation program. Ultimately, including this decision to grant the CEO performance board. These discussions first took place among members of the compensation committee, all of them independent, including this new, new independent directors, Linda Johnson, Rice and James Murdoch.
帕克是以一个特定遗漏为重点的晚会，没有透露穆斯金·亚伦之间4月9日的对话。随着2012年绩效奖即将完成，董事会进行了长达六个月的积极讨论和持续对话，构建了一项新的薪酬计划。最终，决定授予首席执行官绩效董事会一项重要的任务。这些讨论首先在薪酬委员会成员之间展开，他们都是独立的，包括这些新的独立董事，琳达·约翰逊、莱斯和詹姆斯·默多克。
Even accepting defendants board line reading the April 9 conversation between Musk and Aaron, prize was material and should have been disclosed. I that's that seems like total crap to me like I don't understand what any of this difference makes the key terms argument. No, is there is there some legal authority for the process matters this much.
即使接受被告弱化马斯克和亚伦之间4月9日对话的说法，奖励也是实质性的，应该被披露。我认为这完全是胡说八道，我不明白这些关键术语的争议有什么区别。难道这个过程有很重要的法律依据吗？
I mean, I create a false narrative for how the process. Disclosure need not give a play by play when fiduciaries choose to provide the history of the transaction. They have an obligation to provide with an accurate full and fair characterization of those historic events. So by saying we spent six months negotiating this, you had to tell them everything. I don't know enough about that one legally to say whether he's wrong, whether she's wrong or not.
我的意思是，我为这个过程创造了一个虚假的叙述。当受信托人选择提供交易历史时，披露并不需要逐个播报。他们有责任提供准确、完整和公正的历史事件描述。所以，如果说我们花了六个月来谈判这个交易，那就需要告诉他们所有的细节。关于这个问题，从法律上来说，我对他（她）是否正确还不够了解。
Because the most important details of the grant were disclosed, implicitly defendant argue the stockholders want you to do the economics and transaction and cast an informed vote. One. Because dependence failed to show that the stockholder vote was fully informed, they bore the prudent and improved entire fairness.
因为授予的最重要的细节被隐含地披露了出来，被告辩称股东希望您对经济和交易进行评估，并做出知情的选择。其中一点是，由于被告未能证明股东投票是充分知情的，他们承担了审慎和提高整体公平性的责任。
Entire fairness review. Concept of fairness has two basic aspects, fair dealing and fair price when the transaction was timed, economic and financial considerations. Fennance failed to prove that the grant was product of fair dealing or at a failed price.
全面公平审查。公平概念有两个基本方面，即在交易进行时的公平处理和公正价格，以及经济和财务考虑。Fennance未能证明授予是在公平处理或公正价格的基础上进行的。
Timing of the first discussion was dictated by Aaron Price not Musk. Aaron Price credibly testified he ignited this discussion because tests that reached nearly all the milestones of the pre-recired compensation plan. No evidence that Musk was secretly behind the start of negotiations nor is there any evidence that Musk set the table for the negotiations by acting and impaled to do plus it as manner.
首次讨论的时间由Aaron Price而非Musk决定。Aaron Price可靠地证明，他发起了这次讨论，因为之前进行的测试几乎达到了预先设定的补偿计划的所有里程碑。没有证据表明Musk私下推动了谈判的开启，也没有证据表明Musk以某种方式安排并表现出积极的意愿来进行谈判。
Although Musk did not manipulate the initial time in the process he repeatedly and unilaterally manipulated the timeline of the process. Musk's team seems to see it's interesting he's describing basically Marin and Aaron Price as Musk's team when that's a conclusion that seems inaccurate because they're creating details and telling Elon this is what we're going to do and Elon saying okay rather than Elon telling them what to do.
尽管马斯克在过程中并没有操纵最初的时间，但他一再且单方面地操纵了整个过程的时间安排。马斯克的团队似乎觉得有趣的是，他将基本上的马林和亚伦·普赖斯描述为马斯克的团队，这个结论似乎不准确，因为他们是在设计详细计划并告诉马斯克“这是我们要做的”，而不是马斯克告诉他们要做什么。
Musk's red light green red approach negatively affected the process. Musk's habit of shaking up the timeline or changing his proposal just before a meeting made it tough for the directors and advisors to immediately evaluate the grant respond. This is how Musk manages everything so I don't know but I don't think he's managing this I don't think it's fair to say he's managing this process.
马斯克的红灯绿灯式的处理方式对流程产生了负面影响。马斯克在会议前经常改变时间表或提议，使董事和顾问们难以立即评估并回应他的提议。这就是马斯克管理一切的方式，所以我不确定，但我认为他没有很好地管理这个过程。我认为说他管理这个过程是不公平的。
How the transaction was negotiated and structured. Although defendants cast the negotiations as the strongest aspect of the process they're actually most dramatic failures form over substance defendants tell his time spent a merely superficial indicia compensation committee was compromised conflict they could negotiate an arms length against Musk. No evidence of any adversary on negotiation again like they said it wasn't adversarial it wasn't adversarial it wasn't adversarial so okay. Defendants are correct.
交易是如何进行谈判和架构的。尽管被告将谈判描述为整个过程中最强大的方面，但实际上，它们是最戏剧性的失败。被告声称他们花在补偿委员会上只是表面文章，委员会已受冲突的影响，他们无法对马斯克进行公平的谈判。没有任何对抗性谈判的证据，就像他们所说的那样，它并不是对抗性的，它不是对抗性的，它不是对抗性的，所以好吧。被告是正确的。
Okay defendants are correct that all else equal requiring more growth in market cap for the same number of shares means a better deal for stockholders. There's no credible evidence that the ship from 10 tranches to 12 and the associate increase in the difficult of the market cap targets resulted from many actual negotiations. And thus why would that matter? What does negotiation have to be hey Elon we're doing this okay. Is that not negotiation? The board backed into 12 tranches when translating Musk's demand of 10% Compet where they supposed to negotiate a more rigorous clawback provision and why would that have mattered? And if you're not an advisor's cannot help the analysis because they've like no role in negotiations that we're no negotiations we all agree with that. If tenants agree that benchmarking is standard and essential. You can't have see this thing saying they should have had arms length bar you can have arms length bargaining when you can't lose the CEO. I don't understand like how do you have arms length bargaining like what's the arms length bargaining? Elon if you don't agree to this we're going to find another CEO like why? This is nonsense.
被告方的观点是正确的，如果其他条件相同，要求相同股份数量增加市值更多，对股东来说是更好的交易。没有可信的证据表明从10个分期支付变为12个，以及与市值目标增加相关的困难，是由许多实际谈判引起的。那么这有什么关系呢？谈判必须是“嘿，埃隆，我们要这样做，好吗？”吗？这不是谈判吗？董事会在翻译马斯克要求10%的业绩指标时，就已经确定了12个分期，他们应该谈判更严格的资金回收条款吗？那有什么关系呢？如果你们不是顾问，不能对分析起到帮助作用，因为你们在谈判中没有任何角色，我们都同意这点。如果被告方同意基准设定是标准且必要的，你就不能说他们应该遵循独立交易原则，当你失去了首席执行官时就无法进行独立交易。我不明白怎么会有独立交易，什么是独立交易呢？埃隆，如果你不同意，我们会找另外一位首席执行官，这是什么鬼话。
Whether a transaction was structured to require approval of an independent board negotiating committee or majority of the minority vote is another important initiative of fairness. Musk and Kimball recused themselves five of the six directors were beholden to Musk or had compromising conflicts. Fair price and fair value standards call for equivalent economic inquiries. The courts task is to determine this is probably one of the biggest issues here. Whether the transaction price falls within a range of fairness. No absolute limit on a magnitude of a compensation grant but process can infect price or pricing terms cannot be justified blah blah blah.
是否要求独立董事会谈判委员会的批准或者少数股东多数表决的交易构架是公平的另一个重要举措。马斯克和金博尔退出，六名董事中有五人对马斯克感恩戴德或存在妥协性冲突。公平价格和公正价值标准要求进行等效经济调查。法院的任务是确定交易价格是否在公平范围内。对于补偿授予的幅度没有绝对限制，但过程可能影响价格或定价条款，这些无法被证明是合理的等等。
Defendants primarily urge the court to evaluate the price by comparing the terms of the exchange what Tesla gave against what Tesla got. Arguing the grant was all upside for the Tesla stockholders to say they risk nothing and gave 6% for $600 billion. There are many ways to analyze price fairness is a good reason to reject the gift get model or no market based evidence support the price. Grant was only upside for the additional reason the grant structure aligned Musk's interest with shareholders. Grant muscles were ambitious and difficult to achieve.
被告主要敦促法院通过比较特斯拉给予的交换条件与特斯拉得到的条件来评估价格。他们认为，这项赠与对特斯拉股东来说全是好处，因为他们没有承担任何风险，却以6000亿美元获得了6%的回报率。有很多方法可以分析价格公平性，这是拒绝接受礼物模式或没有市场证据支持价格的很好理由。赠与的结构使得马斯克的利益与股东利益一致。赠与的目标是雄心勃勃且难以实现的。
Each of defendants arguments failed did not prove that the grant falls within range of fairness. Oh my god that's a lot of footnote. I'm sorry I'm trying to get through this to find equity based compensation plans considered to be continues to be a powerful way to reduce agency costs and align the interests of management with those of shareholders. Agency costs are where the the it's called the principal agent model the agent is working for the shareholders of the principal and the executive is the agent. And if the agent isn't aligned with the shareholders and the agent might do things in his own interest that don't benefit the shareholders. So having equity based compensation aligns interests. But where an executive has a sizable pre existing equity stake there's a good argument that the executives interest are already aligned with those of the stockholders.
每一个被告的论点都没有证明该授权符合公平范围。天啊，这有太多的脚注了。对不起，我正在努力找出基于股权的薪酬计划被认为是减少代理成本并将管理层的利益与股东的利益相一致的强有力的方法。代理成本是指所谓的委托代理模型，代理人为委托人的股东工作，执行人是代理人。如果代理人与股东不一致，代理人可能会为自身利益而采取不利于股东的行动。因此，基于股权的薪酬可以使利益一致。但是，如果高管拥有大量的现有股权，有一个很好的论点可以证明高管的利益已经与股东的利益一致了。
Okay. There are many examples of visionaries with large pre-existing equity holdings for going compensation entirely Zuckerberg Bezos Gates and others so familiar in the world that no first name is required but none of those executives had other companies that would take their time away.
好的。有许多具有大量股权的有远见的人的例子，他们完全放弃了薪酬，像扎克伯格、贝索斯、盖茨等在全球范围内非常熟知的人物，以至于无需提及他们的名字。但是，这些高管中没有人有其他公司会占用他们的时间。
None of those companies had other companies that would take their time with Zuckerberg doesn't have another company to go to Bezos I guess could go to blue at Blue Origin and basically Bezos left Gates didn't have another company to go to. In each instance they recognize that the executives pre-existing ownership stake provided its executive say efficient executive incentives but Elon has other companies he could go to not considered here.
那些公司中没有一家公司会占用他们的时间，而扎克伯格没有其他公司可以去。我猜贝索斯可以去Blue Origin，贝索斯离开了盖茨没有其他公司可以去。在每个例子中，他们意识到高管先前拥有的股份为其高管提供了高效的激励，但埃隆有其他公司可以去，这里没有考虑。
Why did Tesla have to give anything in these circumstances he owned 22% so no mention here no mention here that Elon has other options. There's no mention here that Elon could go work for SpaceX full time and decide you know what I'm going to take a lesser role at Tesla and what effect would that have had on the stock. The principal defect with defense give-get argument is it does not address the $55.8 billion question.
在这种情况下，特斯拉为什么必须给出什么？因为他拥有22%的股权，本文中没有提及埃隆还有其他选择。这里没有提到埃隆可能全职去工作在SpaceX，并决定在特斯拉扮演较低的角色，这会对股价产生什么影响。防御性付出论点的主要缺陷在于它没有解答那个千亿美元的问题。
See see here the judge is using the final value rather than the fair value at the date of Grant. Given Musk's pre-existing equity stake was the grant within the range of reasonable approaches to achieve the board's purported goals or at a minimum could the board have accomplished its goals at less and would must have taken it.
看看这里，法官使用的是最终价值而不是授予日期的公平价值。考虑到马斯克之前的股权份额，这次授予是否在实现董事会所声称的目标的合理方法范围内，或者至少董事会是否能以较低成本实现其目标，马斯克是否必须接受这次授予。
Musk stood again considering for achieving the market. Again the judge is focused on the $55 billion instead of the $2.6 billion this is really striking. This is the judge focusing on the end. I don't see any mention of the valuation of the plan at the beginning. That's the question that should be addressed here.
马斯克再次站起来，考虑实现市场目标。法官再次关注的是550亿美元，而不是26亿美元，这真的很惊人。这是法官关注结果的表现。我没有看到计划估值在一开始提到。这是应该在这里讨论的问题。
Why step milestones of the time grant that were 70% okay that's not. Defendants also argue that Musk would need an additional status to stay on at Tesla or he spent more time at SpaceX where he could fulfill his collective ambitions. That begs another question if encouraging Musk to prioritize Tesla or his other ventures were important why not place guard rails on how much time or energy Musk had to put into Tesla.
为什么时间赋予的步骤里有70%是可以的，而不是全部。被告也辩称，马斯克需要额外的身份才能留在特斯拉，或者他会在SpaceX花更多时间，以便实现他的整体雄心壮志。这引出了另一个问题，如果鼓励马斯克优先考虑特斯拉或其他企业很重要，为什么不限制他在特斯拉投入的时间和精力？
Even assuming the truth of all defendants points they do not add up there's simply no evidence that the added incentive provided by a grant of this magnitude was necessary much less fair. No mention in this part of the decision of the market value at the time of the grant. The judge is treating this as a $55 billion award instead of what it was a $2.3 billion or $2.5 billion award.
即使假设所有被告所提出的观点都是真实的，它们并不能累加，因为根本没有证据表明这种巨额补助所提供的额外激励是必要的，更不用说公平了。判决中没有提及授予时市场价值的情况。法官将其视为550亿美元的奖励，而不是实际上的23亿或25亿美元的奖励。
Sharing market cap with operational milestones provided safety in the structure. Just reading through defendants arguments. Defendants argue the grant price was fair because its milestones were ambitious and difficult to achieve. The judge is focused on the early parts of the trench. The early tranches which were within reach by the time the plan was approved.
与运营里程碑共享市值在结构上提供了安全性。只是阅读被告的论点。被告辩称授予价格是公平的，因为其里程碑是雄心勃勃且难以实现的。法官专注于计划的早期部分。早期分段可在计划获批时达成。
This failed to prove their factual predicates that all the milestones were ambitious and difficult to achieve. You're saying it's a $55 billion award and then you're talking about the billions or so at the beginning. You had a valuation of $2.6 billion in value. Why are you ignoring that value? This offered no theoretical justification for carrying the grant to venture capital. They're comparing it to private equity and the judge is not having it.
这未能证明他们所有里程碑都是雄心勃勃且难以实现的事实依据。你说这是一个550亿美元的奖励，然后又在一开始提到了数十亿的价值。你们的估值是26亿美元，为什么忽视了这个价值？这未能提供将资金投入风险投资的理论上的合理化。他们将其与私募股权进行比较，法官对此不接受。
It's most conservative comparison the plan of sex could conceivably devise. The grant date fair value was 11.7x larger than the median peer group. Indeed, the grant entitled must have billions even if Tesla significantly unperformed its historical results. Disunder stock order approval is compelling evidence the price was fair.
这是对性别计划可能设计的最保守的比较。授予日期的公平价值是同行群体中位数的11.7倍。实际上，即使特斯拉表现显著不及其历史业绩，这项授予授权应该价值数十亿。未遵循股票订单批准是价格公平的有力证据。
Stockholder vote is one component of fair value of fair price analysis. Stockholder vote is only comparing on the evidence of fairness absent a disclosure violation. Uninformed stockholder vote is totally meaningless. The stockholder vote is a meaningless indicator as the fair price. Significant public information available concerning that issue, trade in an efficient market. Because the stockholder vote was not fully informed it does not support a fair price.
股东投票是公平价格分析的一个组成部分。股东投票仅在不存在信息披露违规的情况下对公平性进行比较。不知情的股东投票是完全没有意义的。股东投票作为公平价格的指标是没有意义的，因为在这个问题上有大量的公开信息可供参考，这个市场交易非常高效。因为股东投票不完全知情，所以它不支持公平价格。
We knew what the tranches were. We knew the amounts. We knew what the—I mean, that's bullshit. Fennance finally argued from hindsight to claim the grant was fair because it worked. Tesla thrived because of the 2018 plan, asked the court to infer a direct-cross relationship, failed to prove that most less than full-time efforts were Tesla were solely or directly sponsored for Tesla's recent growth.
我们知道什么是券段。我们知道金额。我是说，那简直是胡扯。Fennance最后以事后的眼光辩称这项补助是公平的，因为它奏效了。特斯拉因2018年的计划而蓬勃发展，要求法庭推断出一种直接交叉关系，但未能证明特斯拉最近的增长绝大部分兼职工作仅针对特斯拉进行赞助。
And then we get to rescission. This is the big question. Lead argument is must rescind the grant or it has discretion to order rescissions or remedy for you. It's an overly rigid rule. Second argument prevails. Let's find the argument that the judge ruled in favor.
然后我们来到废弃权的问题。这是一个重要的问题。主要的论点是必须废弃授权，或者法院有权自行决定是否废弃或为您提供补救措施。这是一个过于死板的规定。第二个论点占据优势。让我们找到法官支持的论点。
Recision is warranted. Not given for every serious mistake, the court has broad discretion to award rescission where the facts and circumstances warrant this court as a word rescission as a remedy for breach of fiduciary duty. This is entitled to equitable rescission. A plaintiff must demonstrate that rescission is both reasonable and prospering in the circumstances. The grant is not too complex to unscramble. Recision is uniquely available. No third-party interests are implicated. The entire grant sits on exercise undisturbed and exercised. Shares will be subject to the five-year-old period.
应当做出撤销决定。法院不会对每个严重错误作出判决，但在事实和情况证明撤销是适当的情况下，法院有广泛的自由裁量权来判决撤销作为违反诚信责任的救济措施。这被称为公平撤销。原告必须证明在特定情况下撤销是合理和有利的。这项判决并不复杂。撤销是唯一可行的解决办法。没有第三方利益受到影响。整个授予权力保持不变且有效地行使。股份将受到五年期限的限制。
Defendants argue that rescission is a harsh consequence that would lead must uncompensated but must pre-existing equity stake. What the hell happened? The last one. The last one. Pre-existing equity stake provided tens of billions of dollars for his efforts and defendants have not offered a viable alternative short of leaving the grant intact. Here's a critical detail. Did the defendant say, hey, listen, if you're going to overturn this pay package, here's an alternative that would make sense.
被告辩称，撤销将是一种严厉的后果，将导致被告无偿失去已存在的股权份额。这到底发生了什么？最后一个。最后一个。先前的股权份额为他的努力提供了数百亿美元，而被告没有提供一个可行的替代方案，除非保留原始授权。这里有一个关键细节。被告是否说过，嘿，倾覆这个薪酬方案的话，我们有一个有意义的替代方案。
Valiant, directors of Valiant Pharmaceuticals International breach their fiduciary duties by awarding themselves and other executives and employees large cash bonuses in connection with a later aborted corporate restructuring of an on-defendant settle before trial. This is something where they defrauded shareholders. As in Valiant, the defendant held herald of the grant as fair but failed to meet their burden. They all failed to identify any logical, defensible. I don't know what this Valiant case is but it sounds like a situation where they defrauded shareholders and the directors awarded themselves lots of money. Not that they awarded the CEO lots of money. Nothing in the record to allow the court to fashion a remedy that would order rescission only to the extent the grant was unfair.
翻译成中文：
Valiant是Valiant Pharmaceuticals International的董事，他们违反了他们的受托责任，通过在一次后来被取消的公司重组计划中向自己和其他高管员工颁发大额现金奖金。这就是他们欺骗股东的行为。在Valiant这个案例中，被告方宣称授予奖金公平合理，但未能承担责任。他们都未能找出任何合乎逻辑、可辩护的理由。我不知道这个Valiant案件是什么，但听起来像是他们欺骗了股东，并向董事们授予了大量资金。而不是只授予了CEO大量资金。在记录中没有任何内容，使得法院能够制定只对不公平授予部分进行撤销的救济措施。
Once a breach of duty is established, uncertainties of warning damage are generally resolved against the wrongdoer. Here are the wrongdoers against the defendants. The court resolves a certain certainty against them. For the foregoing reasons, judgement is entered and played in favor. Parties are to confer on form of final order.
一旦违反职责的事实得到确认，通常会将警示损失的不确定性归咎于过错方。在这里，被告方就是那些过错方。法院会对其做出确定性的解决。鉴于上述理由，判决得以制定并偏向原告。各方应就最终命令的形式进行协商。
Now here's the question. That's the decision. I'm going to close this. Let's go to where are we? Let me look. It's a she. Let me just see if we have any. I don't know where the chat is. We have three replies. I don't see a chat. I don't see replies. Do I have any DMs? Yeah, the judge's female. Okay. Just ignore the chat. Okay. I think that's it. I don't think I have anything more to add at this point. I don't know where a chat would be, so I'm going to have to let it go. I want to thank everyone for watching. I'm going to post this stream on YouTube, and then I'm probably going to live stream again on YouTube. I may redo this stream on YouTube directly because that makes more sense. I think it's 1134 at night on the east coast. I'll think about it. Thanks, everybody, so much for watching. Please reply to the post. Let me know what you think, and we'll talk again soon. Thanks, everybody. Bye-bye.
现在问题来了。这是个决定。我要结束了。我们去哪里？让我看看。是一个女的。让我看看我们有没有。我不知道聊天在哪里。我们有三个回复。我看不到聊天。我看不到回复。我有私信吗？是的，法官是女性。好的，就当聊天不存在吧。好的。我想这就是了。我想我暂时没有什么要补充的了。我不知道聊天应该在哪里，所以我只能放手了。我要感谢大家观看。我将把这个流媒体发布到YouTube上，然后可能会再次在YouTube进行直播。我可能会直接在YouTube上重新做这个直播，因为那更有意义。我想这是东海岸晚上11点34分。我会考虑一下。非常感谢大家观看。请回复这篇帖子，让我知道你们的想法，我们很快再聊。谢谢大家。再见。