resolves YES when the incorporation in Texas is legally certain after initial votes, NO otherwise
If there's no vote scheduled by the end of this year's annual meeting (not scheduled yet), this resolves NO
If a judge is successful at preventing a vote from occurring, then NO.
If vote occurs, a judge blocks after, but the move in incorporation happens anyways, then YES.
If vote occurs, a judge blocks after, and is successful at legally preventing the move (after all appeals), then NO.
Related questions
๐ Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | แน1,103 | |
| 2 | แน989 | |
| 3 | แน911 | |
| 4 | แน736 | |
| 5 | แน700 |
@KevinBurke It resolves depending on the vote's result.
If the judge is successful at preventing a vote from occurring, then NO.
If vote occurs, the judge blocks after, but the move in incorporation happens anyways, then YES.
If vote occurs, the judge blocks after, and is successful at legally preventing the move (after all appeals), then NO.
@notarealuser No. The following is added to the description:
"The Tesla annual shareholder meeting is presumably in May, if there's no vote scheduled by the closing of this question (August 1st), this resolves NO"
@notarealuser Actually, there's a chance the annual meeting might be later than August 1st, I'll wait for the annual meeting to finish before resolving it NO if there's no vote
@SteveMahoney shouldn't this resolve NA if no vote takes place. wether or not a vote will take place seems like an entirely different market/topic.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/02/elon-musk-proposes-tesla-move-to-texas-after-delaware-judge-voids-56-billion-pay/
McCormick's ruling in favor of the plaintiff in a shareholder lawsuit said that most of Tesla's board members "were beholden to Musk or had compromising conflicts."
If what McCormick is saying is the truth, and the board is still very pro-Musk, then this has a chance at succeeding.
On the other hand, it's still a very big move that might be very costly, so who knows if this will happen.