A couple of weeks ago, news broke that Tesla changed their annual general meeting (AGM) date in a way that put most shareholders on the back foot with regards to filing proposals. As reported by Fortune, “Meredith Benton, the founder of an ESG-focused consulting firm who’s been involved in shareholder activism for 20 years, said she’s never seen a company announce an annual meeting date the way Tesla did."
Due to a discrete announcement on page 57 of its 60 page 10-Q filing in October, shareholders, including Tulipshare, were unable to file their proposals in time.
Tesla’s decision to move the AGM without making shareholders duly aware speaks to the urgency of our campaign and the apparent lack of accountability for the company’s environmental, social and governance reputation.
Our campaign looks to link mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence policies to Elon Musk’s compensation package in order to incentivise timely and systemic company improvements regarding human rights and climate change.
Additionally, in light of Musk’s recent tweets voicing concerns on proxy voting firms having too much power, Tesla's decision to announce the date for their upcoming AGM in such a manner felt like somewhat of a chess move, at the very least without reverence for public markets, financial inclusion and shareholder democracy.
So what does this mean for our campaign?
Though we are no longer qualified to file a shareholder proposal with Tesla for the 2023 AGM, we are continuing our engagement efforts and have requested a meeting with the company’s investor relations team, though we have yet to hear back.
Concerns are mounting about the health of the company, with news of Tesla’s share price taking further hits (along with Elon Musk’s personal fortune) despite plans for a $3.6million expansion to Nevada, and delays to Musk’s shareholder lawsuit, owing to ongoing negative press raising questions around jury bias.
We will, of course, keep you updated as our conversations with Tesla progress.