It wasn’t a criminal case, and plaintiffs didn’t need to meet a high burden of proof. And Delaware’s entire fairness standard is a two-prong test that includes both fair dealing and fair price: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weinberger_v._UOP,_Inc.
The court ruled:
> Even assuming (without deciding) that Elon was Tesla’s controlling stockholder, the Tesla Board was conflicted, and the vote of the majority Tesla’s minority stockholders approving the Acquisition did not trigger business judgment review, such that entire fairness is the standard of review, the persuasive evidence reveals that the Acquisition was entirely fair…
> Equally if not more important, the preponderance of the evidence reveals that Tesla paid a fair price—SolarCity was, at a minimum, worth what Tesla paid for it, and the Acquisition otherwise was highly beneficial to Tesla. Indeed, the Acquisition marked a vital step forward for a company that had for years made clear to the market and its stockholders that it intended to expand from an electric car manufacturer to an alternative energy company. The Court’s verdict, therefore, is for the defense.
"The court made 11 factual findings showing that Musk had participated in the deal process to a degree greater than he should have."
"The trial court noted that these “process flaws flow[ed] principally from [Musk’s] apparent inability to acknowledge his clear conflict of interest and separate himself from Tesla’s consideration of the Acquisition."
"Upon recognizing these process flaws, the court then turned to what it identified as the strengths. It found six."
"Regarding fair dealing, the trial court noted that the road leading to the Acquisition was not entirely smooth. The court found, however,that the “Tesla Board meaningfully vetted the Acquisition” and Musk “did not impede the Tesla Board’s pursuit of a fair price.”Although Appellants assert that the court failed to make a finding of fair dealing, the court’s opinion can only reasonably be read and understood as concluding that the flaws did not overcome the findings of the process strengths and that the process, overall, was the product of fair dealing."
What’s that got to do with the court’s ruling that Tesla paid a fair price, which is what I said in my OP? This is the relevant part of the opinion:
> In instances where there are process infirmities, the Court is obliged to study fair price even more carefully. I have done that here. After careful consideration, I am persuaded Elon presented credible evidence that Tesla paid a fair price for SolarCity. Plaintiffs answered by proffering incredible testimony that SolarCity was insolvent, and then provided some “also ran” theories on value that their experts did not ultimately endorse, or at least not persuasively so. Given this, I have no credible basis in the evidence to conclude that a “fairer price” was available, and therefore, no basis to conclude that the price paid was not entirely fair. Indeed, the price was, in my view, not “near the low end of a range of fairness,” but “entirely” fair in the truest sense of the word.
The ruling is based on price _and_ process by your own reference. You keep moving the goalposts. Which end do you want to play from? I thought not burying the lede was the scheme here?
The court ruled:
> Even assuming (without deciding) that Elon was Tesla’s controlling stockholder, the Tesla Board was conflicted, and the vote of the majority Tesla’s minority stockholders approving the Acquisition did not trigger business judgment review, such that entire fairness is the standard of review, the persuasive evidence reveals that the Acquisition was entirely fair…
> Equally if not more important, the preponderance of the evidence reveals that Tesla paid a fair price—SolarCity was, at a minimum, worth what Tesla paid for it, and the Acquisition otherwise was highly beneficial to Tesla. Indeed, the Acquisition marked a vital step forward for a company that had for years made clear to the market and its stockholders that it intended to expand from an electric car manufacturer to an alternative energy company. The Court’s verdict, therefore, is for the defense.