Connect with us

Business

Video: Google C.E.O. Comments On Landmark Monopoly Ruling

Published

on

Video: Google C.E.O. Comments On Landmark Monopoly Ruling

“Sundar Pichai is here, everybody, the C.E.O., of course, of Alphabet and Google. How much of your time, and I promise we’d get to it, is spent these days on thinking about this legal case that you are the center of with the U.S. government saying you’re a monopoly and we are going to break you up? They have talked about effectively trying to do a whole bunch of things, spinning off Chrome, figuring out how to deal with Android, preventing you from paying folks like Apple to make Google the default search engine on the phone.” “Look, I spend the vast majority of my time on innovation and product innovation we need to do as a company. But at our scale as a company, it’s a big part of my job to engage with regulators and viewed it as an important part of my role to do that. From a legal standpoint, look, these are complex cases. They are in the thick of it. We have very, very capable teams which work through it. I have, I spend time, but it’s not an extraordinary amount of time or something like that, yeah.” “But what do you think your chances are, if you will? I mean, do you say to you, I don’t know how much you want to speculate, but there’s a big question mark about if any of these things were to come to pass, what it would do to the business?” “Look, I mean, I would say this even through the ruling, the judge commented on that we are clearly the highest quality search engine product out there. And we have gotten to that position by innovating ahead of everyone else.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Business

Video: Bezos Is ‘Very Optimistic’ About a Second Trump Term

Published

on

Video: Bezos Is ‘Very Optimistic’ About a Second Trump Term

new video loaded: Bezos Is ‘Very Optimistic’ About a Second Trump Term

transcript

transcript

Bezos Is ‘Very Optimistic’ About a Second Trump Term

During an interview at the DealBook Summit on Wednesday, Jeff Bezos, the Amazon and Blue Origin founder, said President-elect Donald J. Trump was calmer and more confident now.

“Jeffrey Bezos, everybody.” [audience clapping] “If we’re talking about Trump, I think it’s very interesting. I’m actually very optimistic this time around that we’re going to see — I’m very hopeful about this. He seems to have a lot of energy around reducing regulation. And my point of view, if I can help him do that, I’m going to help him.” “What about the idea that he thinks that the press is the enemy?” “Well, I think he — I’m going to try to talk him out of that idea. I don’t think the press is the enemy. And I don’t think — he’s also — you’ve probably grown in the last eight years. He has, too. This is not the case: The press is not the enemy.” “I hope you’re right.” “I hope I’m right, too.” “Have you talked —” ”Let’s go persuade him of this —” “Have you talked to him about it?” “You and I should go. Let’s go talk to him.” “If we could try —” “I really don’t — I think that this is absolutely — I don’t think he’s going to see it the same way. But maybe I’ll be wrong.” “Was that always your thought, by the way?” “What I’ve seen so far is that he is calmer than he was the first time and more confident, more settled.”

Advertisement

Recent episodes in DealBook

Continue Reading

Business

Elon Musk's multibillion-dollar pay package is rejected for a second time. What to know

Published

on

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.

Advertisement

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?

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.”

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Business

L.A. County supervisors seek aid for hundreds of workers affected by Phillips 66 refinery closure

Published

on

L.A. County supervisors seek aid for hundreds of workers affected by Phillips 66 refinery closure

With a major oil refinery in Wilmington and Carson scheduled to close next year, Los Angeles County officials are looking to shore up resources for hundreds of workers who will be left without jobs.

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a motion Tuesday asking county staff to work with local partners such as the city of Los Angeles and the South Bay Workforce Investment Board to develop a plan to provide hiring fairs, training and other job placement resources for affected workers.

Oil giant Phillips 66 announced in October that the century-old complex, which sprawls across 650 acres and produces about 8% of the state’s gasoline, would cease operations late next year. Its closure will affect some 600 employees and 300 contract workers that keep its operations running.

Supervisor Janice Hahn said at the meeting that more than half of the affected workforce is Latino and includes skilled workers such as operators, welders, engineers and safety compliance experts that would bring “years of specialized training and certifications” to other jobs. She said they should receive support to help them make the transition to similar jobs in renewable energy, infrastructure development and advanced manufacturing.

Advertisement

“This is a time the county needs to lean in and support them as they face this abrupt transition,” Hahn said.

Supervisors Hahn and Holly Mitchell introduced the motion, which also asks various departments to identify career pathways for “hard-to-hire” skilled trade positions within the county itself.

“We have the responsibility to ensure that displaced workers can smoothly transition … not just by partnering with the private sector but also by opening up doors here at the county,” Mitchell said at the meeting.

The county’s Director of Economic Opportunity has 60 days to report back to the board with an action plan.

The announcement of the pending closure came amid community concerns of harmful emissions and high pollution levels. Mark Lashier, chairman and chief executive of Phillips 66, said in an October news release that the long-term sustainability of the operation was “uncertain and affected by market dynamics.”

Advertisement

“We understand this decision has an impact on our employees, contractors and the broader community,” Lashier said. “We will work to help and support them through this transition.”

The closure will leave the state with eight major refineries, three in the Bay Area and five in Southern California, operated by Chevron, Valero and others.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending