Wasn't there a shareholder suite that alleged the directors aren't independent because of the above-standard Tesla options they receive? Robyn Denholm excecised and sold $35M worth of TSLA in the past month.

> This is true at most companies with a competent CEO.

No it's not.

Competent CEOs hire boards that align with their world-view but are independent enough to provide useful advice. And almost all startup boards will have investors who definitely will not rubber stamp the sort of thing going on at Tesla.

Some companies have board governance rules that mandate a majority of the board seats be of "outside and independent" individuals, but of course this can easily be gamed and, of course, these rules themselves can be put to a vote during shareholder meetings.

Still, it's always worth considering these structures before one invests--especially in med-to-large-cap public companies.

Alternatively, in private small-cap and venture-boards, the seats are nearly always filled by founders and lead investors and I would argue that's a "good thing".

SEC destroyed

Following the law should be above the shareholder gain. Mentality like yours is what got us in this situation where people are blatantly abusing the government for personal gain.

It's not enough to just do a poll and say that most shareholders are "happy." If there is even one owner, which there will be, who objects, you need to be able to show that decisions were in the best interest of the company. That doesn't mean said owner has to agree with them, but if there are deals that arguably favor outside companies then you will hear from either the SEC or that one shareholder.

The other comment saying "the law is above shareholder gain" is kind of missing the point thought--the law in question is specifically to protect the interest of shareholders.

This is how you end up with another Enron