Ecco i quattro motivi supportanti la decisione, come li riassume all’inizio della stessa il giudice:
<<The motion to revise is denied. The large and talented group of defense firms
got creative with the ratification argument, but their unprecedented theories go
against multiple strains of settled law. There are at least four fatal flaws. First, the
defendants have no procedural ground for flipping the outcome of an adverse post-trial decision based on evidence they created after trial. Second, common-law ratification is an affirmative defense that must be timely raised, which means that, at a minimum, it cannot be raised for the first time after the post-trial opinion. Third, what the defendants call “common law ratification” has no basis in the common law— a stockholder vote standing alone cannot ratify a conflicted-controller transaction. Fourth, even if a stockholder vote could have a ratifying effect, it could not do so here due to multiple, material misstatements in the proxy statement. Each of these defects standing alone defeats the motion to revise>>
Quelli interssanti sono il 3 ° (sub C, p. 34 ss) e soprattutto il 4° (sub D, P. 41 SS) : ratifica invalda perchè senza basi nel common law e comunque perchè i soci erano disinformati (inesattezze nella delega di voto)
Riporto solo ciè che Tesla aveva detto ai suoi soci:
<<• Their vote could “extinguish claims for breach of fiduciary duty by
authorizing an act that otherwise would constitute a breach.”166
• “[T]he deficiencies, including disclosure deficiencies, procedural
deficiencies, and breaches of fiduciary duty, identified by the Delaware
Court in connection with the Board and our stockholders’ original
approval of the 2018 CEO Performance Award should be ratified and
remedied and any wrongs found by the Delaware Court in connection
with the 2018 CEO Performance award should be cured.”167
• “[I]f the 2018 CEO Performance Award is ratified, those options will be
restored to Mr. Musk. As a result, Mr. Tornetta may not be considered
to have rendered the ‘benefit’ to Tesla through his lawsuit that is
claimed by his attorneys.”168
• And “a new stockholder vote allows the disclosure deficiencies found by
the Tornetta court to be corrected, among other things>>.
Ebbene, dice il giudice, “All of this is materially false or misleading”.
Importasnti studiosi di diritto societario usa pensano che i giudici del Delaware siano diventasti un pò troppo pro minoranze e troppo poco pro amministratori: ad es. Jonathan Macey e Stephen M. Bainbridge.
Di quest’ultimo v. il suo post 2 dicembre 2024 sulla seconda sentenza qui ricordata.