Business
Elon Musk's multibillion-dollar pay package is rejected for a second time. What to know
A Delaware judge rejected Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk’s multibillion-dollar pay package for a second time, writing in her opinion this week that the company’s approval process for the package was “deeply flawed.”
Tesla shareholders approved the compensation plan in 2018, which was once valued at $56 billion but fluctuates dramatically with Tesla’s stock price. Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick first rejected the plan earlier this year on the grounds that Musk had unfair influence over shareholders and that negotiations over his pay plan were not legitimate.
McCormick rejected the plan again this week, citing similar reasons, although attorneys for Musk have argued that the outsized compensation plan is justified because it’s directly tied to Tesla’s valuation, which currently sits at more than $1 trillion.
A dominant player in the electric vehicle market, Tesla has faced setbacks this year amid increased competition and safety concerns surrounding its Full Self-Driving mode. The company slashed more than 10% of its global workforce in April, citing a need to cut costs.
Musk was tapped last month to lead President-elect Donald Trump’s new Department of Government Efficiency, a role that could bolster his influence and Tesla’s standing.
How did we get here?
Tesla shareholder Richard Tornetta filed a lawsuit against Musk and the company in 2018 after the majority of shareholders approved a 10-year performance-based pay package for Musk.
Tornetta alleged that Musk misled investors who approved the plan and exercised inappropriate influence over negotiations. Musk denied the allegations at trial, saying he did not control the terms of the pay package or attend meetings where it was discussed.
McCormick sided with Tornetta in January and blocked the plan. After the ruling, Tesla shareholders voted again to approve the pay package, with more than 70% in favor, but it was not enough to change McCormick’s mind.
Why did the judge rule twice?
After McCormick’s first ruling, Musk’s attorneys argued that the shareholders’ overwhelming support of his compensation plan should override the court’s decision. Tesla shareholders voted twice to approve the plan, but McCormick maintained that they were not acting independently.
“There were undoubtedly a range of healthy amounts that the board could have decided to pay Musk,” McCormick wrote in her second opinion. Instead, the board “capitulated to Musk’s terms and then failed to prove that those terms were entirely fair,” she said.
McCormick said that it was not standard for a judge to change a ruling based on the vote of shareholders. There was “no procedural ground” to reverse the decision, she wrote.
How does Musk’s pay compare?
If approved, Musk’s compensation plan would be the largest in U.S. history for a public company executive, according to CNBC. The pay plan includes a series of 12 milestones and would award Musk additional Tesla shares as the company grows.
In order for Musk to reach each milestone, Tesla’s market capitalization must increase in $50-billion increments. For Musk to fully vest in the award, the company’s market cap must reach $650 billion, the company said.
Musk’s attorneys argue that the pay plan is a reflection of what the executive is worth, but McCormick disagrees. In her second ruling, the judge also awarded the plaintiffs $345 million in legal fees, although plaintiff attorneys had asked for a whopping $5.6 billion.
Who’s right?
Corporate governance expert Charles Elson said the Delaware court’s ruling was sound and in line with the law because Musk had violated conflict of interest regulations. Tesla also created improper new evidence after McCormick’s first decision by calling for a second shareholder vote, he said.
“The judge found that the board was not independent of Musk and there was no negotiation between him and the board that produced this package, which makes it suspect,” Elson said. “The standard rules have to apply.”
What will Musk do now?
Musk criticized McCormick’s ruling on X, the social media platform he owns, writing that “shareholders should control company votes, not judges.”
Tesla also posted on X that the court’s decision was wrong and the company plans to appeal. The appeal would be filed with the Delaware Supreme Court.
“This ruling, if not overturned, means that judges and plaintiffs’ lawyers run Delaware companies rather than their rightful owners,” the company wrote.
Attorneys for Tornetta and the other shareholders who oppose Musk’s pay plan said they would defend the court’s ruling if the decision is appealed.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Business
Bay Area semiconductor testing company to lay off more than 200 workers
Semiconductor testing equipment company FormFactor is laying off more than 200 workers and closing manufacturing facilities as it seeks to cut costs after being hit by higher import taxes.
The Livermore, Calif.,-based company plans to shutter its Baldwin Park facility and cut 113 jobs there on Jan. 30, according to a layoff notice sent to the California Employment Development Department this week. Its facility in Carlsbad is scheduled to close in mid-December later this year, which will result in 107 job losses, according to an earlier notice.
Technicians, engineers, managers, assemblers and other workers are among those expected to lose their jobs, according to the notices.
The company offers semiconductor testing equipment, including probe cards, and other products. The industry has been benefiting from increased AI chip adoption and infrastructure spending.
FormFactor is among the employers that have been shedding workers amid more economic uncertainty.
Companies have cited various reasons for workforce reductions, including restructuring, closures, tariffs, market conditions and artificial intelligence, which can help automate repetitive tasks or generate text, images and code.
The tech industry — a key part of California’s economy — has been hit hard by job losses after the pandemic, which spurred more hiring, and amid the rise of AI tools that are reshaping its workforce.
As tech companies and startups compete fiercely to dominate the AI race, they’ve also cut middle management and other workers as they move faster to release more AI-powered products. They’re also investing billions of dollars into data centers that house computing equipment used to process the massive troves of information needed to train and maintain AI systems.
Companies such as chipmaker Nvidia and ChatGPT maker OpenAI have benefited from the AI boom, while legacy tech companies such as Intel are fighting to keep up.
FormFactor’s cuts are part of restructuring plans that “are intended to better align cost structure and support gross margin improvement to the Company’s target financial model,” the company said in a filing to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission this week.
The company plans to consolidate its facilities in Baldwin Park and Carlsbad, the filing said.
FormFactor didn’t respond to a request for comment.
FormFactor has been impacted by tariffs and seen its growth slow. The company employs more than 2,000 people and has been aiming to improve its profit margins.
In October, the company reported $202.7 million in third-quarter revenue, down 2.5% from the third quarter of fiscal 2024. The company’s net income was $15.7 million in the third quarter of 2025, down from $18.7 million in the same quarter of the previous year.
FormFactor’s stock has been up 16% since January, surpassing more than $67 per share on Friday.
Business
In-N-Out Burger outlets in Southern California hit by counterfeit bill scam
Two people allegedly used $100 counterfeit bills at dozens of In-N-Out Burger restaurants in Southern California in a wide-reaching scam.
Glendale Police officials said in a statement Friday that 26-year-old Tatiyanna Foster of Long Beach was taken into custody last month. Another suspect, 24-year-old Auriona Lewis, also of Long Beach, was arrested in October.
Police released images of $100 bills used to purchase a $2.53 order of fries and a $5.93 order of a Flying Dutchman.
The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office charged Lewis with felony counterfeiting and grand theft in November.
Elizabeth Megan Lashley-Haynes, Lewis’s public defender, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Glendale police said that Lewis was arrested in Palmdale in an operation involving the U.S. Marshals Task Force. Foster is expected in court later this month, officials said.
”Lewis was found to be in possession of counterfeit bills matching those used in the Glendale incident, along with numerous gift cards and transaction receipts believed to be connected to similar fraudulent activity,” according to a police statement.
A representative for In-N-Out Burger told KTLA-TV that restaurants in Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego counties were also targeted by the alleged scam.
“Their dedication and expertise resulted in the identification and apprehension of the suspects, helping to protect our business and our communities,” In-N-Out’s Chief Operations Officer Denny Warnick said. “We greatly value the support of law enforcement and appreciate the vital role they play in making our communities stronger and safer places to live.”
The company, opened in 1948 in Baldwin Park, has restaurants in nine states.
An Oakland location closed in 2024, with the owner blaming crime and slow police response times.
Company chief executive Lynsi Snyder announced last year that she planned to relocate her family to Tennessee, although the burger chain’s headquarters will remain in California.
Business
Newsom’s budget includes $200 million to make up for Trump’s canceled EV rebates, among other climate items
Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday doubled down on California’s commitment to electric vehicles with proposed rebates intended to backfill federal tax credits canceled by the Trump administration.
The plan would allocate $200 million in one-time special funds for a new point-of-sale incentive program for light-duty zero-emissions vehicles. It was part of a sweeping $348.9-billion state budget proposal released Friday, which also included items to address air pollution and worsening wildfires, amid a projected $3-billion state deficit.
EVs have become a flashpoint in California’s battle against the Trump administration, which moved last year to repeal the state’s long-held authority to set strict tailpipe emission standards and eventually ban the sale of new gas powered cars.
Last year, Trump ended federal tax credits of up to $7,500 for EV customers that were part of President Biden’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. In September, his administration also let lapse federal authorization for California’s Clean Air Vehicle decal program, which allowed solo EV drivers to use carpool lanes.
“Despite federal interference, the governor maintains his commitment to protecting public health and achieving California’s world leading climate agenda,” Lindsay Buckley, spokesperson for the California Air Resources Board, said in an email. “This incentive program will help continue the state’s ZEV momentum, especially with the federal administration eliminating the federal EV tax credit and carpool lane access.”
Newsom had previously flip-flopped on this idea, first vowing to restore a state program that provided up to $7,500 to buy clean cars and then walking it back in September. That same month, a group of five automakers including Honda, Rivian, Hyundai, Volkswagen and Audi wrote a letter urging Newsom and state legislators to establish a $5,000 EV tax rebate to replace the lost federal incentives, Politico reported.
During his State of the State speech Thursday — one year after the devastating Palisades and Eaton fires in Los Angeles — Newsom said California “refuse[s] to be bystanders” while China and other nations take the lead on electric vehicles and the clean energy transition. He touted the state’s investments in solar, hydrogen, wind and nuclear power, as well as its recent move away from the use of any coal-fired power.
“We must continue our prudent fiscal management, funding our reserves, and continuing the investments Californians rely on, from education to public safety, all while preparing for Trump’s volatility outside our control,” the governor said in a statement. “This is what responsible governance looks like.”
Several environmental groups had been urging Newsom to invest more in clean air and clean vehicle programs, which they say are critical to the state’s ambitious goals for human health and the environment. Transportation is the largest source of climate and air pollution in California and is responsible for more than a third of global warming emissions, said Daniel Barad, Western states policy manager with the nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists.
“As federal attacks threaten California’s authority to protect public health, incentives are more essential than ever to scale up clean cars and trucks,” Barad said. “The governor and legislative leaders must act now to fully fund zero-emission transportation and pursue new revenue to grow and sustain climate investments.”
Katelyn Roedner Sutter, California senior director with the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund, called it “an essential step to save money for Californians, cut harmful pollution, spur innovation, and support the global competitiveness of our auto industry.”
While the budget proposal does not include significant new spending proposals, it contains other line items relating to climate and the environment. Among them are plans to continue implementing Proposition 4, the $10-billion climate bond approved by voters in 2024 for programs geared toward wildfire resilience, safe drinking water, flood management, extreme heat mitigation and other similar efforts.
Among $2.1 billion in climate bond investments proposed this year are $58 million for wildfire prevention and hazardous fuels reduction projects in vulnerable communities, and nearly $20 million to assist homeowners with defensible space to prevent fire. Water-related investments include $232 million for flood control projects and nearly $70 million to support repairs to existing or new water conveyance projects.
The proposal also lays out how to spend money from California’s signature cap-and-trade program, which sets limits on greenhouse gas emissions and allows large polluters to buy and sell unused emission allowances at quarterly auctions. State lawmakers last year voted to extend the program through 2045 and rename it cap-and-invest.
The spending plan includes a new tiered structure for cap-and-invest that first funds statutory obligations such as manufacturing tax exemptions, followed by $1 billion for the high speed rail project, $750 million to support the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and finally secondary program funding such as affordable housing and low-carbon transit options.
But while some groups applauded the budget’s broad handling of climate issues, others criticized it for leaning too heavily on volatile funding sources for environmental priorities, such as special funds and one-time allocations.
The Sierra Club called the EV incentive program a crucial investment but said too many other items were left with “patchwork strategies that make long-term planning harder.”
“Just yesterday, the Governor acknowledged in his State of the State address that the climate risk is a financial risk. That is exactly why California needs climate investments that are stable and ongoing,” said Sierra Club director Miguel Miguel.
California Environmental Voters, meanwhile, stressed that the state should continue to work toward legislation that would hold oil and gas companies liable for damages caused by their emissions — a plan known as “Make Polluters Pay” that stalled last year amid fierce lobbying and industry pressure.
“Instead of asking families to absorb the costs, the Legislature must look seriously at holding polluters accountable for the harm they’ve caused,” said Shannon Olivieri Hovis, California Environmental Voters’ chief strategy officer.
Sarah Swig, Newsom’s senior advisor for climate, noted that the state’s budget plan came just days after Trump withdrew the United States from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, a major global treaty signed by nearly 200 countries with the aim of addressing global warming through coordinated international action.
“California is not slowing down on climate at a time when we continue to see attack after attack from the federal government, including as recently as this week with the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the UNFCCC,” Swig told reporters Friday. “California’s leadership has never mattered more.”
-
Detroit, MI1 week ago2 hospitalized after shooting on Lodge Freeway in Detroit
-
Technology5 days agoPower bank feature creep is out of control
-
Dallas, TX3 days agoAnti-ICE protest outside Dallas City Hall follows deadly shooting in Minneapolis
-
Dallas, TX6 days agoDefensive coordinator candidates who could improve Cowboys’ brutal secondary in 2026
-
Delaware2 days agoMERR responds to dead humpback whale washed up near Bethany Beach
-
Iowa5 days agoPat McAfee praises Audi Crooks, plays hype song for Iowa State star
-
Health7 days agoViral New Year reset routine is helping people adopt healthier habits
-
Nebraska4 days agoOregon State LB transfer Dexter Foster commits to Nebraska