·Fortune IntelligenceTesla holder group urges be, ‘appriate remedial action’ from Nasdaq over Elon Musk’s $29 billion pay packageBy Nick LichtenbergBy Nick LichtenbergFortune Intelligence EditorNick LichtenbergFortune Intelligence EditorNick Lichtenberg is Fortune Intelligence editor and was formerly Fortune's executive editor of global news.SEE FULL BIO Tesla CEO Elon MuskTom Brenner—The Washington Post/Getty ImagesIn the twist in a long-running battle over Elon Musk’s compensation at Tesla, the SOC Investment Group has requested that Nasdaq formally investigate “and take appriate remedial action” against Tesla for its recent $29 billion equity grant to the CEO.
In a letter to Nasdaq, the group raised concerns compliance with executive compensation rules and holder transparency.
The SOC Group, formerly known as the CtW Investment Group, works with pension funds sponsored by a coalition of unions representing over 2 million members; many of those funds are Tesla investors.
In a letter dated Aug. 19, 2025, addressed to Erik Wittman, deputy general counsel and head of enforcement at Nasdaq, SOC expressed “serious concerns” Musk’s new compensation package.
Specifically, SOC said it was concerned that Tesla’s board circumvented Nasdaq listing rules when awarding Musk a “2025 CEO Interim Award,” disclosed earlier this month.
The group claims this equity award should have required a holder vote, as stipulated under Nasdaq’s rules, given that it materially am compensation plans.
Tesla’s board apved Musk’s new equity package under the company’s 2019 Equity Incentive Plan, largely as compensation for his previously awarded—and overturned—$56 billion options package from 2018, known as the “2018 CEO Performance Award.” That older award was (twice) overturned by the Delaware Chancery Court owing to questions regarding board independence—a decision currently being appealed at the Delaware Supreme Court.
Fortune’s Shawn Tully reported that the new package will only apply if Musk and Tesla lose on appeal in Delaware.
He also noted that un with the $56 billion award, the newer $29 billion award includes restrictions that tect holders: The s vest on the second anniversary of the grant, or early August 2027, only if Musk serves for the entire period as CEO or chief of duct development or operations.
Musk can’t sell any of those vested s until five years later, or on Aug. 3, 2030.
Fortune’s Amanda Gerut reported that, such restrictions notwithstanding, the package lacks hard performance targets for Musk.
Brian Dunn, director of the Institute for Compensation Studies at Cornell University, told Fortune that experts sometimes refer to these as “fog-the-mirror grants.” In other words: “If you’re around and have enough breath left in you to fog the mirror, you get them.” The objections lobbied by SOC Investment Group in its letter have nothing to do with either feature of the grants.
The group argues that the Tesla board dodged holder apval for the package, in contravention of Nasdaq listing policy.
Tejal Patel, executive director of the SOC Investment Group, told Fortune in an interview that the “real issue is the fact that the original plan … was pretty in the disclosures that the company did not intend to include Elon Musk in that plan.” Acknowledging that such issues are usually raised with the Securities and Exchange Commission, she added: “Admittedly, this is the first time I’ve flagged something this to Nasdaq, [and that’s] because it was a very specific listing standard.” Her understanding of the Nasdaq standard is that “this is exactly what it was designed to avoid.” holders ly ‘did not believe’ they were voting to apve a new Musk package The SOC Investment Group emphasizes that when Tesla holders apved the 2019 Equity Incentive Plan, company disclosures explicitly excluded Musk from eligibility, stating that his compensation would be exclusively tied to the extraordinary 2018 award.
“When holders voted on the 2019 Plan it is ly that, based on the available disclosures and re, they did not believe they were voting on an equity plan that would cover compensation to Mr.
Musk,” the SOC letter notes, “precisely because of the ‘truly extraordinary’ nature of the 2018 CEO Performance Award.” The SOC letter also notes that Tesla’s 2019 xy statement repeated multiple times that the 2019 plan was not int to cover awards to Musk.
Furthermore, the letter mentions that major xy advisory firms indicated that the 2018 CEO Performance Award was “int to be the sole means of compensation for Mr.
Musk, relying on the Company’s disclosures.” Therefore, SOC writes, the 2025 CEO Interim Award “appears to expand the class of participants under the 2019 Plan in manner that would be sufficiently material to require a separate holder vote.” The letter also warns that Tesla’s board has indicated further interim awards could , potentially bypassing holder votes while the Delaware case, the so-called Tornetta litigation, is pending.
The SOC letter urges Nasdaq to act to “restore ‘the rightful balance between holder and management’s interests,’” prevent dilution, and ensure executive compensation transparency.
SOC has “real concerns over director independence,” Patel told Fortune.
“This is of the outcome of having a board that is not independent.” She said her group is concerned with issues over a lack of director independence and the juggling of responsibilities by Elon Musk, and matters have “come to a head in the last several months.” This timeline overlaps with Musk’s brief engagement as a special advisor to the White House, including extensive involvement with the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.
The new compensation plan, if anything, “was an opportunity for the board to get Musk to focus on Tesla, and instead” they’ve arrived at this package, she said.
She also noted that the conditions under which Musk would receive the same pay, even if he was a chief of duct development or operations, is “pretty unheard-of.” A vocal, active holder SOC Investment Group has a long and active history of engagement with Tesla, focusing on issues such as executive compensation, governance, board independence, and labor rights.
The group has repeatedly opposed large pay packages for Musk—including leading campaigns to encourage holders to vote against Musk’s $56 billion option award and calling for votes against related awards, especially when it believed per holder apval cedures were circumvented or governance standards were not met.
The group has also urged Tesla holders to vote against the reelection of certain directors, such as Kimbal Musk and James Murdoch, citing concerns lack of board independence from Elon Musk and alignment with holders’ interests.
Similar to its current letter to Nasdaq, it has requested investigations by regulators into Tesla’s governance practices, arguing that the company’s board favors Musk’s interests over those of public holders.
For example, the group asked the SEC to be Tesla’s plan to shrink its board in 2022.
The group has also joined with other investors in co-filing holder resolutions calling for Tesla to adopt comprehensive labor rights policies, including noninterference with worker organizing and compliance with global labor standards.
SOC has been involved in webinars and resolutions highlighting risks related to Tesla’s apach to unions and labor issues across several countries.
Tesla has not publicly responded to the letter and did not immediately respond to Fortune’s request for . For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft.
An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. Introducing the 2025 Fortune Global 500, the definitive ranking of the biggest companies in the world. Explore this year's list.