• Tesla is set to announce the results of a vote on Elon Musk's pay plan at its annual meeting Thursday.
• A Delaware judge voided the package in January and Tesla is seeking to get it reinstated.
• Tesla has campaigned heavily for the plan over the past month.

Tesla kicks off its annual shareholder meeting tomorrow — and Elon Musk's $55 billion pay package is hanging in the balance.

Shareholders have been voting over the past few weeks on whether Tesla should reinstate Musk's compensation plan, which was valued at $55 billion when it was struck down by a Delaware judge earlier this year.

Now, it's almost time to see where the votes have fallen.

On Thursday, the electric carmaker will announce the results of the vote, which could have major ramifications for Tesla's stock price and the future of the company.

Earlier in June, Tesla board chair Robyn Denholm warned that the company might lose Musk's attention and fail to motivate the CEO if Tesla was unable to reinstate the pay package. Similarly, Musk has threatened to take his work with AI outside of Tesla if he is unable to secure additional voting shares.

The pay plan was first approved by shareholders in 2018. Musk's compensation is determined by Tesla's ability to hit a series of financial goalposts under his leadership and it involves a 10-year grant of 12 tranches of stock options that are vested when Tesla hits specific targets. When the company passes each milestone, Musk receives stock equal to 1% of outstanding shares at the time of the grant. Tesla said it hit all of the 12 targets as of 2023.

In January, a Delaware judge voided the pay package, arguing that Musk had undue influence over the creation and approval of the package and the carmaker failed to properly disclose Musk's influence to shareholders.

How it could play out

If the majority of shareholder votes cast favor Musk's pay package, the company may be able to eventually reinstate the plan, though it likely won't go into affect immediately.

The company said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it will seek to reverse the ruling and will use an affirmative vote to argue against the judge's decision.

However, if the majority of Tesla shareholders vote against the proposal it's less clear what next steps the company — or Musk — will take.

The company could still attempt to appeal the judge's ruling, Anat Alon-Beck, a corporate law expert out of Case Western Reserve University, previously told Business Insider. Tesla also indicated in a regulatory filing that they were considering putting forth an alternate pay plan if the proposal fails to go through. Tesla said the new plan "would need to be of a similar magnitude to the 2018 plan."

A spokesperson for Tesla did not respond to a request for comment.

Over the past few months, Tesla has gone all out in its efforts to promote Musk's pay package and encourage investors to vote. The company bought up ads and issued a series of letters to shareholders.

The initiative has pitted institutional investors, many of whom have already come out against the proposal, against Tesla's army of retail investors. Meanwhile, Tesla fans and Tesla employees have taken to social media over the past month to promote the proposal.

On Saturday, Musk said on X that 90% of the retail investors who had voted thus far had voted in favor of the pay plan. Tesla's retail investors hold a notable level of power at the company. Individual investors hold a large portion of Tesla stock, accounting for about 44% of Tesla shares, per S&P Global Market Intelligence data quoted by Reuters in May.

Musk's compensation is not the only issue that Tesla investors have been weighing. The company is also asking investors to vote on whether to move Tesla's state of incorporation from Delaware to Texas and a separate proposal to reelect Tesla board members Kimbal Musk, who is the Tesla CEO's brother, and James Murdoch.

Do you work for Tesla or have a tip? Reach out to the reporter via a non-work email and device at gkay@businessinsider.com or 248-894-6012.

• A kite surfer stranded on a remote beach in California found a novel way to call for aid.
• The man used rocks to spell out the word "HELP" on the sand. 
• It caught the eye of a private helicopter operator, who then called 911.  

A kite surfer stranded on a narrow beach in California found a novel way to call for aid.

Surrounded by tall cliffs and a rising tide on the beach south of Davenport Landing, he laid out rocks on the sand to spell out a large "HELP," per an X post by the Santa Cruz unit of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection on Sunday.

A private helicopter spotted the sign and alerted the authorities.

A rescue helicopter was later dispatched to the location and airlifted the kite surfer out, according to the video posted by the department.

The kite surfer started from Davenport Landing Beach but was swept down the coastline, where he was stranded, NBC Bay Area reported.

"It is an extremely beautiful place to work and live," Cal Fire Capt. Skylar Merritt told NBC Bay Area. "That being said, it can lull people into a false sense of security around those cliffs. Those beaches are notorious for strong winds, rip tides, and cold water."

A similar rescue operation happened in April when the US military rescued three mariners stranded on a Pacific island for more than a week.

They used palm leaves to write "HELP" on the beach in Pikelot Atoll, a small island part of the Federated States of Micronesia.

They were spotted by a US reconnaissance aircraft and rescued on April 9.

Cal Fire did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider sent outside regular working hours.

• iPod inventor Tony Fadell thinks Apple is on the right track when it comes to AI.
• Fadell said Apple's latest AI offerings are a "solid first effort" that focuses on users.
• The former Apple executive said there was too much hype surrounding what AI could do.

Apple may seem to be trailing flashy AI firms like OpenAI, but iPod inventor Tony Fadell thinks the company's slow but steady approach to the technology is the right one.

"Apple is taking baby steps because right now that is all we can count on to deliver successfully," Fadell wrote on X on Tuesday. "This is a solid first effort by Apple focusing on real benefits to users (ex. Siri)."

Fadell was responding to an article by TechCrunch that praised Apple's "boring and practical" approach toward AI. The iPhone maker unveiled its new AI offerings on Monday during a keynote presentation at its annual Worldwide Developers Conference.

Fadell left Apple back in 2010 but weighed in with his assessment of the AI industry, which he said was being overtaken by investor hype and frenzy.

"Today's AI LLMs are mostly glorified demos for the really interesting applications. They are turning into a commodity because they're overfunded by FOMO-driven VCs who don't truly understand the technology limitations that drive real application requirements," he said.

In fact, Fadell says the AI craze is highly reminiscent of the rush to fund companies working on self-driving cars over a decade ago.

"It was the NEXT big thing. What do we have 10-12 years later? Think about how many years have past for those efforts to be perfected (and they still aren't yet). We haven't even seen a self-driving car business work yet either," he said.

"How many billions were spent on that next big thing before reality set in?! AI is VERY similar," he continued.

Markets were initially skeptical of Apple's AI work, with the company's shares falling by 2% on Monday after the event. But a positive reception from Wall Street analysts sent the stock soaring 7% on Tuesday.

Representatives for Apple didn't immediately respond to a request for comment from BI sent outside regular business hours.

• My father gave me my mother's engagement ring at her funeral.
• I wanted to throw it into her grave. My brother stopped me.
• I still don't like wearing jewelry, but I'm glad I kept this heirloom.

My mother adored jewelry and never understood why I, her only daughter, refused to wear any. I wouldn't get my ears pierced and preferred my wrists, neck, and fingers bare.

We did, however, share an interest in fashion. So, I made it a point to find the perfect black dress, hat, and heels to wear to her funeral. Crying in the June heat, my mascara mixing with tears, I watched mourners shoveling dirt into the grave. Suddenly, my father was by my side, taking my hand like when I was little.

He pressed something into my palm and folded my fingers around it, saying, "You should have this."

My dad wanted me to have my mother's ring

When he let go, I glanced down. I immediately recognized my mother's engagement ring. Lying on its side, the platinum band with its pointy diamond seemed lost. Mom was always proud of it and loved getting compliments. Her wedding band had been stolen years prior in a home burglary.

"Sometimes my fingers swell," she explained. "I'll always regret taking it off."

I stared into the crystal-clear gemstone as if a flower was blooming inside. I was mesmerized.

There was a lull in the shoveling, and it got quiet. I walked to the edge of the open graveside and whispered, "I love you Mom," one last time. As if on cue, I caught the sun's rays dancing off the angular surfaces of the sparkling gem.

I really wanted to throw it into her grave

I stood there just long enough to attract my brother's attention. "Are you alright?" he asked. "Do you want to shovel some soil?"

The urge to throw the ring into my mother's grave grew stronger. It felt like it was burning a hole in my palm — like it wanted to be with her.

"Look what Dad gave me," I showed him. "But it really belongs with Mom."

As my arm pulled back, my brother took hold of my elbow. "You don't want to do that."

"Watch me," I thought as I yanked away. Then I paused and took a deep breath. I didn't want to cause a scene or upset anyone. My arm relaxed as I shook off my childish defiance.

The ring came home with me.

I kept it but wasn't sure what to do with it

Aside from my aversion to wearing jewelry, the ring scared me. The diamond stood out, and it looked valuable, so I put it in a safe deposit box.

Locking up the ring always felt wrong. But there it sat, alone where no one could see it, for years.

One day, during a visit with my father, he mentioned their engagement. His memory was slipping, and Dad forgot I had the ring. He thought it had been stolen, too. "All I have left is this," he said, handing me the original receipt from 1953.

I had never thought about his feelings. He'd picked that ring out, slid it onto my mother's finger, and proposed. Dad was 30. His career in aerospace just starting. Mom was 22. They met in New York and moved to Los Angeles, where she died of ovarian cancer at 64 — far too young.

Today it sits on my ring finger — sometimes left, sometimes right. I also wear a ruby and diamond gold band. It's another piece of jewelry I never wanted, but my husband gave it to me while we were dating, and it became my wedding ring when we tied the knot.

While I still don't like how they feel on my skin, I love what these jewels symbolize in my life. And I'm certain my mother would be pleased to see me wearing bling that belonged to her finally.

• Elon Musk withdrew his lawsuit against OpenAI and its CEO, Sam Altman, on Tuesday. 
• Musk accused OpenAI of violating its nonprofit mission when he filed the lawsuit in February. 
• But dropping the case doesn't mean that Musk is burying the hatchet with Altman just yet.

Elon Musk might have withdrawn his lawsuit against OpenAI and its cofounders on Tuesday, but he certainly isn't giving up on winning the AI race just yet.

The mercurial billionaire filed a lawsuit against the ChatGPT maker in February, accusing OpenAI of violating its nonprofit mission by partnering with Microsoft. Musk cofounded OpenAI with its current CEO, Sam Altman, but left its board in 2018.

"More on this later," Musk said of the lawsuit's withdrawal early on Wednesday morning.

But the decision to withdraw the case, just a day before a judge was set to consider OpenAI's request to dismiss it, probably isn't a sign of Musk burying the hatchet with Altman.

For one, Musk seemed furious when Apple unveiled its widely anticipated partnership with OpenAI on Monday. Shortly after the announcement, Musk threatened to prohibit Apple devices at his companies.

"If Apple integrates OpenAI at the OS level, then Apple devices will be banned at my companies," Musk wrote in an X post. "That is an unacceptable security violation."

This is despite Apple's assurances that "privacy protections are built in for users who access ChatGPT." The iPhone maker said in a press release on Tuesday that OpenAI wouldn't be able to track their users' IP addresses or store their requests.

Representatives for Musk and OpenAI did not immediately respond to requests for comment from BI sent outside regular business hours.

Musk doesn't need the lawsuit to tangle with OpenAI

Stepping back from all the drama, Musk's goal with the OpenAI lawsuit might have had less to do with winning the case and far more to do with publicly dragging Altman and OpenAI.

"These types of lawsuits can air a lot of dirty laundry, and it can be a major distraction that could impact their day-to-day operations," David Hoffman, a contract law expert from the University of Pennsylvania, told BI's Grace Kay in March.

And for what it's worth, Musk seems to have spent the interim period repositioning his companies for the AI age.

Musk has spent the past few months pitching investors on his vision for EV giant Tesla as an "AI or robotics company."

Besides teasing a new robotaxi concept, Musk has also hyped the company's Optimus robots as being "more valuable than everything else combined."

"If you value Tesla as just like an auto company, fundamentally, it's just the wrong framework, and if you ask the wrong question, then the right answer is impossible," Musk said in an earnings call in April.

Then, in late May, Musk revealed that his AI startup xAI raised $6 billion for its Series B funding round, giving it a total valuation of $24 billion. This makes Musk's xAI the second-most valuable AI company behind OpenAI, which is valued at around $80 billion.

With his chess pieces in place, Musk seems ready to take on OpenAI.

Now the ball's in Altman's court. Your move, Sam.

• Russia's war against Ukraine has improved conditions for some poor Russians.
• War-related activities drive economic resilience, with 3.6% GDP growth last year.
• High interest rates and military focus pose risks to Russia's economic stability.

Russia's war against Ukraine has made some poor Russians better off, complicating any calculus over how to end it.

Russia's sanctions-hit economy has appeared resilient even over two years into the war, posting 3.6% GDP growth last year

Reports from Russia suggest the growth is primarily driven by wartime activities that generate demand for military goods and services, subsidies that steady the economy, and sharp policy-making.

"Russian economy is progressively becoming militarised," wrote researchers at the London-based Centre for Economic Policy Research think tank in May.

"Some sectors and some regions have been winners in Russia's new war-oriented economy," they said.

According to the CEPR researchers, production in war-related industries increased by 60% from the fall of 2022 to the spring of 2024. Manufacturing output from other sectors remained flat over the same period.

Some of Russia's poorest regions are benefiting from a redistribution of wealth.

"The war has offered many people upward social mobility that was not available in the preceding decades of Russia's reintegration into the global economy," the CEPR researchers wrote, referencing the fall of the Soviet Union.

Higher pay than even the oil industry

Households in regions where military recruitment is up have recorded higher deposits since the war started, according to a separate Bank of Finland report published in January. The research showed bank deposits grew about 30% from August 2022 to August 2023 in poor regions where more men were joining the war — outpacing 20% growth in other regions.

Increased wealth could make it difficult for the Kremlin to scale back the war in Ukraine, since that would also mean a slowdown in military-related production, an economist told Radio Free Europe on Tuesday.

Soldiers from poor regions who are now on the frontlines might struggle with a decline in income because there are few opportunities should they return home, economist Andrei Yakovlev at the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Harvard University, told the media outlet.

Higher pay comes with risks.

The UK Ministry of Defense estimated in May that half a million Russian soldiers had likely been killed or wounded since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

This, alongside a brain drain, is contributing to a manpower crunch in Russia — prompting the military to pay more than the lucrative oil and gas industries.

The Russian army offers contract soldiers a nationwide sign-on bonus of 195,000 rubles, or about $2,200, while salaries start at 210,000 rubles per month. In comparison, workers in Russia's relatively high-paying oil and gas sector took home about 125,200 rubles in monthly nominal salary in the first two months of the year, according to Bloomberg's calculations.

Russia's economic report shows that the country is increasingly caught in a web of challenges due to the war and its impact on the economy.

While Russia's top central banker Elvira Nabiullina and her team have managed to steady the economy so far, there are cracks emerging.

Earlier this month, Herman Gref, the CEO of Sberbank — Russia's largest bank by asset value — said the country's economy is "definitely and strongly overheated." Nabiullina herself warned in December the country's economy was at risk of overheating.

Last week, Igor Sechin, the CEO of Russian oil giant Rosneft complained that high interest rates — put in place to tamp inflation — are making financing hard for businesses.