Category: 3. Business

Tesla shareholders could soon give CEO Elon Musk, already the wealthiest person on the planet, the chance to become the world’s first trillionaire – or risk him walking away entirely.

Musk’s new pay package is the key measure that will be up for a vote at Tesla’s annual meeting Thursday afternoon. Shareholders have widely approved Musk’s pay packages in the past, but this year holds an added risk – the company warned in September that Musk “raised the possibility that he may pursue other interests” should it be denied.

The compensation would come in the form of a stock grant that would give Musk as much as 423.7 million additional shares of Tesla stock over the next 10 years. Those shares would be worth about $1 trillion, assuming the company reaches the $8.5 trillion market cap needed to have Musk qualify for the full potential payout.

In addition to increasing the Tesla’s market cap over this ten-year period, Tesla would also need to achieve a series of either operational or financial targets for him to get the full options.

For Tesla to reach $8.5 trillion in market value, it would need an increase of 466% from today’s stock price. That’s also about 70% higher than the world’s most valuable company, Nvidia, which hit a record $5 trillion market cap last week.

However the company has had rocky financial performance so far this year that saw sales and profits plunge in the first half of the year, and strong financial headwinds going forward from the loss of US government support for EV sales.

But Musk and Tesla executives dismiss those problems, saying Tesla is shifting focus from merely selling electric vehicles to selling self-driving cars, including a fleet of “robotaxis,” as well as humanoid robots.

Those products and concepts are still under development and haven’t gone on sale, however. So even if the pay package passes, it’s not certain that Musk will ever see any of its potential hundreds of millions of shares. He will need to straighten out the problems the company faces first, and start living up the big promises that he’s made for the future.

But Musk, as well as some Wall Street analysts and investors, think that the company is on course to reach that $8.5 trillion target and beyond, by shifting focus from merely selling electric vehicles to selling self-driving cars as well as humanoid robots as well as rides in a fleet of “robotaxis.”

Still, Musk’s fans insist he is pivotal to the future, which makes them more certain the package needs to pass.

“Shareholders are going to support this overwhelmingly, because Musk is the key asset for Tesla,” said Dan Ives, analyst for Wedbush Securities and one of the biggest Tesla bulls on Wall Street. “Tesla needs Musk to take it into the autonomous driving, robotic future.”

Even those who don’t support Musk’s vision say they have little doubt the pay package will pass. In the most recent vote on his pay, 84% of shares were voted to approve the package.

“I think it passes no matter what,” said Ross Gerber, CEO of Gerber Kawasaki Wealth & Investment Management, who was an early major shareholder of Tesla, but is now a harsh critic of Musk and the company.

Gerber describes some of the operational and financial targets tied to the pay package as “softball.” He also questions the size of the pay package, no matter how well the company and its stock price might do going forward.

“So if you get a trillion dollars over 10 years, that’s $275 million a day,” he said, calculating how much Musk would earn daily, on average, if the package pays off as planned.

“I just don’t know in the world anybody thinks of that as fair to shareholders,” he said.

Numerous investment funds have already announced they’re voting against the package, including Norges Bank Investment Management, which is Norway’s massive sovereign wealth fund. Some US public pension funds in California, New York, and elsewhere have also come out against the package and urged others to vote no. Some of those have voted no in the past.

Influential advisory firms Glass Lewis and ISS have also recommended that institutional investors vote against the package, arguing that the options that Musk could be granted would dilute shareholders’ stakes.

“The performance targets included in the (Musk’s proposed pay package) are in many cases vague, undemanding, and subject to significant discretion by the board,” said Glass Lewis in a note that recommends voting against the package.

Musk attacked both firms during Tesla’s recent investor call, calling them “corporate terrorists.” He added that their influence over some investor firms that hold shares and vote is the reason he needs a greater stake in the company.

“It’s not like I’m going to go spend the money,” Musk said on the call. “There needs to be enough voting control to give (me) a strong influence – but not so much that I can’t be fired if I go insane.”

Exports of Australian gas carry “substantial risks” of slowing the move to cleaner energy in Asian countries, according to a confidential report for the Western Australian government that undermines the government’s own narrative that the industry helps cut global emissions.

The warning in the 2024 report by consultants Deloitte challenges the claim made by the Western Australian premier, Roger Cook, in 2023 that his state’s increased greenhouse pollution, largely driven by the vast amount of gas burnt to liquefy gas for export, is justified because it is good for the climate and displaces coal power in Asia.

_{Sign up: AU Breaking News email}

WA is the only state without a 2030 emissions-reduction target and is also the only state producing more carbon pollution now than in 2005, the benchmark year for the Paris agreement.

Greens WA upper house member Sophie McNeill, who has pushed for the report’s release, said it exposed the WA Labor government’s spin.

“Despite paying Deloitte more than $400,000, the Cook government did not get the narrative they wanted because it is simply not true,” she said.

“No wonder they’ve been hiding it from the public for almost a year.”

Gas has “significant potential” as an intermediate energy source as economies move from using coal and oil to renewable energy, according to the December 2024 report marked “Cabinet in Confidence” obtained by the Guardian and the ABC.

However, gas exports to Asia could also slow investments in renewable energy.

“These risks must be carefully managed to ensure natural gas serves as a true bridge fuel rather than a long-term dependency that hinders progress toward decarbonisation goals,” Deloitte concluded.

Deloitte sees a diminishing role for gas in Australia’s traditional markets of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. There, consumption must start declining in the 2030s and be just 20% of current levels by 2050 for global warming to be limited to 1.5C.

However, the global consultancy concluded that a growing use of gas for the next 15 years in China, India and Indonesia, followed by a substantial fall in the 2040s, is consistent with climate goals.

Thomas Houlie, an analyst with research organisation Climate Analytics, who has reviewed the report, doubts that increased gas use – which requires billions of dollars for gas import terminals, pipelines and gas-fired power stations – would decline so quickly.

“There is no way to politically guarantee that a fossil fuel like LNG will only be used in the short term, particularly given the lead time it takes to get it up and running,” he said.

“Ultimately, it benefits an industry that can develop these projects and then apply political pressure to cement them in.”

The Japanese government is financing gas production, transportation, and use projects across Asia in a “market-making role” to “enhance Japan’s trade influence and generate commercial opportunities for Japanese firms,” according to Deloitte.

Controversially, Japanese companies resell about a third of the gas they buy from Australia, reaping more than $1bn in profit in 2024.

Deloitte listed Woodside, Chevron, oil and gas lobby group Australian Energy Producers, four Japanese companies with investments in Australian gas projects, and Taiwan’s Ministry of Economic Affairs as key contributors to the study.

According to separate freedom of information documents obtained by WA climate researcher Piers Verstegen, Cook was briefed on the report to prepare for a meeting to “discuss energy diplomacy issues raised by the study”.

He appears to have used the report in March when he told the Guardian that WA “turning off gas” would lead to Asian buyers turning to coal or gas from Russia and the United States.

Deloitte reached that conclusion by assuming that all WA gas exports would cease in 2031, a scenario that Houlie said was irrelevant, arbitrary and extremely unlikely.

The global consultancy also calculated the emissions savings if all gas exported from WA were used to displace coal.

Houlie said it was a false equivalence. “Gas being slightly less climate-harming than the worst fuel doesn’t make it a ‘transition fuel’, especially when we have cost-effective alternatives like solar and wind,” he said.

In a statement, Cook said the draft report by Deloitte was being considered by cabinet. He said it outlined how WA gas was “playing an important role in Asia’s transition to net zero”.

The premier said on a recent trip to Japan he promoted WA’s role in that country’s energy transition through the supply of LNG, ammonia made with gas and carbon capture and storage, and green fuels “when they become commercially available”.

“With limited space to deliver onshore and offshore renewables, coupled with massive energy demand, Japan relies on its trusted trading partners to provide secure, affordable and lower carbon energy,” Cook said.

Helping Taiwanese businesses strengthen cross-border dispute response strategies amid rising geopolitical risks

The “2025 Taiwan Arbitration Week: Geopolitics and Arbitration Conference,” co-hosted by the Chinese Arbitration Association, Taipei (CAA) and Baker McKenzie Taipei, takes place on 5 November in Taipei and 6 November in Kaohsiung. Through the theme of “Geopolitics and Arbitration,” the event invites Taiwanese businesses with overseas operations that may face cross-border disputes to engage in in-depth discussions on how arbitration can serve as a critical tool for corporate risk management and international dispute resolution amid global uncertainties.

The conference features international arbitration experts from Baker McKenzie’s offices and member firms in Taipei, Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia, sharing the latest arbitration trends and practical case studies to help businesses navigate turbulent global political and economic conditions while minimizing legal risks.

________________________________________

As geopolitical risks escalate, arbitration becomes a corporate stabilizer

Amid supply chain reorganization and heightened geopolitical tensions, arbitration agreements have become essential tools for businesses to reduce cross-border risks and ensure transaction stability. Anna Hwang, executive partner at Baker McKenzie Taipei, notes:

“Baker McKenzie conducts annual predictions and analyses of global dispute cases. Both the 2025 and 2024 forecasts indicate that geopolitical risks will continue to dominate corporate dispute types, including supply chain disruptions, artificial intelligence, ESG issues and post-M&A integration. Businesses should prioritize arbitration as their dispute resolution mechanism and maintain commercial thinking during disputes — this is the key strategy for risk reduction and maintaining stability.”
________________________________________

Investor-state disputes: Arbitration safeguards in overseas expansion

When facing trade wars and geopolitical pressures, businesses should leverage international investment agreements for protection. Tony Tang, partner at Baker McKenzie Taipei, states:

“As businesses adjust their overseas strategies in response to trade wars and geopolitical pressures, political risks associated with the host country pose major challenges to corporate risk management capabilities. Through proper investment structure design and ensuring that overseas investments are covered by appropriate international investment agreements, businesses can ensure that investment disputes with host countries will be resolved through neutral, professional and effective international arbitration — a key strategy for avoiding unlawful interference and protecting overseas investment interests.”
________________________________________

Renewable energy and arbitration: Legal defense for high-risk industries

Energy transition presents tremendous opportunities, but also significant risks. Tom Chou, senior consultant at Baker McKenzie Taipei, points out:

“Post-pandemic renewable energy projects face heightened supply chain and price volatility risks, underscoring the need for enforceable financial guarantees, price adjustment mechanisms and strict adherence to cross-border contract terms — even amid sudden market changes such as polysilicon price surges. Stable and long-term electricity price guarantees are crucial for attracting renewable energy investment; retroactive changes to such systems by governments may expose them to expensive international arbitration disputes.”
________________________________________

Dispute boards: Prevention-over-resolution strategic thinking

Dispute boards have proven highly effective in international engineering and large-scale projects, and they are increasingly becoming important tools for corporate risk prevention. Chien-Hung Lai, partner at Baker McKenzie Taipei, states:

“Dispute boards can proactively manage risks, enhance efficiency and cooperation, and encourage early dialogue between parties — achieving dispute prevention, more focused arbitration and cost reduction. With successful track records in both Taiwan and internationally, they are worthy of incorporation into corporate contract management and dispute resolution strategies.”
________________________________________

Post-award challenges: Procedural understanding and risk control

Arbitration awards are not the end of dispute resolution. Terrence Wang, associate at Baker McKenzie Taipei, points out:

“In today’s tightly interconnected yet uncertain global supply chain environment, arbitration has become an important tool for resolving cross-border commercial disputes. However, after an arbitration award is rendered, businesses in Taiwan still face two important procedures: first, actions to set aside arbitration awards; and second, applications for the recognition of foreign arbitration awards. Understanding and effectively utilizing these follow-up mechanisms is critical for ensuring stable operations in global supply chains, cross-border investment decisions and prevention of potential legal risks.”
________________________________________

Cross-cultural arbitration strategies: Practical insights from Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia

Partner Chien-Hung Lai states:

“With its neutrality, credibility and flexibility, arbitration has become the preferred mechanism for managing cross-border disputes in today’s geopolitical world. When Taiwanese businesses expand overseas, they must develop a deep understanding of local cultures and business practices, tailor arbitration clauses accordingly, and carefully select arbitration seats — these are key to effective risk management and enhancing contract enforceability.”

Baker McKenzie’s specialists from Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia share distinctive features of each jurisdiction’s arbitration system, along with practical recommendations to help Taiwanese businesses effectively utilize arbitration mechanisms in overseas operations. Tjen Wee Wong, principal at Baker McKenzie Wong & Leow in Singapore, states:

“Singapore arbitration and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre are among the world’s top choices for dispute resolution, offering high enforceability, efficiency and neutrality. The 2025 rules emphasize procedural simplification, reasonable cost structures and accelerated timelines, aiming to provide effective, flexible and internationally recognized arbitration outcomes.”

Philipp Hanusch, partner at Baker McKenzie Hong Kong, notes:

“Hong Kong’s arbitration system offers multiple advantages for Taiwanese businesses. It features a modern arbitration law framework based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, along with diverse arbitrator selection and neutral courts that support arbitration and respect party autonomy. Both English and Chinese are its official languages. Notably, if a Hong Kong arbitration is administered by the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre or other designated institutions, parties can apply to Chinese Mainland courts for interim measures, which are then directly enforceable in the Chinese Mainland.”

Janice Tay, partner at Wong & Partners in Malaysia, states:

“Malaysia’s arbitration system is built on a modern legal framework that meets international standards, particularly the UNCITRAL Model Law. Supported by the Asian International Arbitration Centre and reinforced by a pro-arbitration judiciary, the system offers efficient, flexible and cost-effective procedures, making Malaysia a trusted strategic hub in Asia for handling complex cross-border disputes.”
________________________________________

Arbitration is the legal foundation for Taiwanese businesses’ global expansion

This conference not only presents the latest arbitration trends and practical case studies but also highlights arbitration’s critical role amid rising geopolitical risks. Through contract design, treaty planning and system selection, Taiwanese businesses can establish robust legal defenses in the global market. Executive Partner Anna Hwang emphasizes, “Arbitration clauses are not just part of contracts — they are key to maintaining stability and flexibility for businesses in an uncertain world.”

Unionized Starbucks baristas voted to authorize an open-ended strike ahead of Starbucks’s high-traffic holiday season, announced Starbucks Workers United on Wednesday.

The union said workers are prepared to strike if a contract is not finalized by 13 November, which is the company’s Red Cup Day, and strike actions could hit more than 25 cities and escalate if there is a lack of progress.

Starbucks Workers United, which represents more than 9,000 workers out of Starbucks’s over 200,000 baristas, has filed more than 1,000 charges against Starbucks for alleged unfair labor practices to the National Labor Relations Board, the union said.

Michelle Eisen, a spokesperson for the union who left Starbucks after a 15-year career at the company, said in a statement: “If Starbucks keeps stonewalling, they should expect to see their business grind to a halt. The ball is in Starbucks’ court.”

The Starbucks Workers United union, had been in talks with the company since last year, and said in October it will vote on picketing in about 60 cities, demanding a contract that reflects “improved staffing, better pay and on-the-job protections”.

Both sides blame the other for ending talks late last year and say they are ready to return to discussions.

Starbucks said in a statement that “any agreement needs to reflect the reality that Starbucks already offers the best job in retail.”