China commissions world's largest radio telescope

Feb 5: Tesla is making Elon Musk a lot richer without paying him a dime.

A blistering stock rally has bolstered the value of CEO Musk's 19% stake in the electric car maker by $16 billion since the start of 2020, to $30 billion.

Tuesday's steep climb in the share price could sweeten Musk's payday under his record-breaking compensation package, which is built on stock options that rely on market value targets. Two milestones have now been achieved that could see Musk unlock options worth $1.8 billion.

The controversial chief executive, who is also the majority owner and CEO of rocket maker SpaceX, recently testified that he did not have a lot of cash as he successfully defended himself in a defamation lawsuit. He previously has taken loans using his Tesla shares as collateral.

Musk does not take a salary, choosing instead a risky options package that envisions the stock market value of Tesla rising to $650 billion over 10 years, a prospect that was derided by some investors when the deal was announced in 2018.

That target now looks less crazy. Shares of Tesla have rallied over 50% since the company posted its second consecutive quarterly profit last Wednesday, which was viewed as a major accomplishment for a company competing against established automotive heavyweights including General Motors Co  and BMW.

Tesla shares have climbed about 400% since early June, helped by the company's better-than-expected financial results and ramped-up production at its new car factory in Shanghai.

On Tuesday, Tesla surged as much as 24% before falling back in the final minutes of the trading session to end the day up 13.7%. That put its market capitalization at $160 billion, almost twice the combined value of Ford Motor and General Motors.

The shares had also rallied on Monday, partly fueled by Panasonic Corp's 6752.T saying its automotive battery venture with Tesla was profitable for the first time.

The options Musk was awarded in 2018 vest incrementally based on targets for Tesla's stock market value and its financial performance. The market capitalization would have to sustainably rise by $50 billion increments over the agreement's 10-year period, with the full package payout reached if the market cap reaches $650 billion, as well as the company's meeting revenue and profit targets.

Musk is on his way to seeing his first two tranches of options vest. He achieved operational targets on revenue and adjusted earnings last year.

The rise in Tesla's market capitalization last month to a target of $100 billion opened the way for Musk's first tranche of options to vest. With Tuesday's surging share price, the market capitalization blew past the second target of $150 billion, opening the way for the second tranche to vest. Tesla's market capitalization must stay at or above each target level for one- and six-month averages for each set of options to vest.

Tesla was valued at about $52 billion when shareholders approved the pay package in March 2018, a time when the company faced a cash crunch, production delays and increasing competition from rivals.

A full payoff for Musk would surpass anything previously granted to U.S. executives, according to Institutional Shareholder Services, a proxy advisor that recommended investors reject the pay package deal at the time.

Musk currently owns about 34 million Tesla shares, and his compensation package would let him buy another 20.3 million shares if all his options tranches vest.

When Tesla unveiled Musk’s package, it said he could in theory reap as much as $55.8 billion if no new shares were issued. However, Tesla has since awarded stock to employees and last year sold $2.7 billion in shares and convertible bonds, diluting the value of the stock.

Musk has transformed Tesla from a niche car maker with production problems into the global leader in electric vehicles, with U.S. and Chinese factories. So far it has stayed ahead of more established rivals including BMW and Volkswagen.

Many investors remain skeptical that Tesla can consistently deliver profit, cash flow and growth. More Wall Street analysts rate Tesla "sell" than "buy," and the company's stock is the most shorted on Wall Street.

New Delhi, Jun 12: The Supreme Court on Friday asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to convene a meeting of the Finance Ministry and RBI officials over the weekend to decide whether interest incurred on EMIs during the moratorium period can be charged by banks.

A bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.R. Shah queried Mehta as the court was concerned since the Centre has deferred loan for three months.

"Then how can interest of these 3 months be added?" the apex bench asked. Mehta replied: "I need to sit down with the RBI officials and have a meeting."

SBI's counsel, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, intervened during the proceedings and said "all banks are of the view that interest cannot be waived for a six month EMI moratorium period".

"We need to discuss it with the RBI," insisted Rohatgi.

Justice Bhushan then asked Mehta to convene a meeting of the RBI and Finance Ministry officials over the weekend, and listed the matter for further hearing on June 17.

The top court, during the hearing, indicated that it was not considering a complete waiver of interest but was only concerned that postponement of interest shouldn't accrue further interest on it.

After the RBI said the waiver of interest charges on EMIs during moratorium will lead to loss of 1 per cent of the nation's GDP, the top court had earlier asked the Finance Ministry to reply, whether the interest could be waived or it would continue during the moratorium period.

The top court said these are not normal times, and it is a serious issue, as on one hand moratorium is granted and then, the interest is charged on loans during this period.

"There are two issues in this (matter). No interest during the moratorium period and no interest on interest," said Justice Bhushan. The observation from the bench came on a petition by Gajendra Sharma, in which he sought a direction to declare portion of the RBI's March 27 notification as ultra vires to the extent it charged interest on the loan amount during the moratorium period.

Mumbai, Jun 27: The Bombay High Court observed that COVID-19 patients from poor and indigent sections cannot be expected to produce documentary proof to avail subsidised or free treatment while getting admitted to hospitals.

The court on Friday was hearing a plea filed by seven residents of a slum rehabilitation building in Bandra, who had been charged ₹ 12.5 lakh by K J Somaiya Hospital for COVID-19 treatment between April 11 and April 28.

The bench of Justices Ramesh Dhanuka and Madhav Jamdar directed the hospital to deposit ₹10 lakh in the court.

The petitioners had borrowed money and managed to pay ₹10 lakh out of ₹12.5 lakh that the hospital had demanded, after threatening to halt their discharge if they failed to clear the bill, counsel Vivek Shukla informed the court.

According to the plea, the petitioners were also overcharged for PPE kits and unused services.

On June 13, the court had directed the state charity commissioner to probe if the hospital had reserved 20% beds for poor and indigent patients and provided free or subsidised treatment to them.

Last week, the joint charity commissioner had informed the court that although the hospital had reserved such beds, it had treated only three poor or indigent persons since the lockdown.

It was unfathomable that the hospital that claimed to have reserved 90 beds for poor and indigent patients had treated only three such persons during the pandemic, advocate Shukla said.

He further argued that COVID-19 patients, who are in distress, cannot be expected to produce income certificate and such documents as proof.

However, senior advocate Janak Dwarkadas, who represented the hospital, said the petitioners did not belong to economically weak or indigent categories and had not produced documents to prove the same.

A person who is suffering from a disease like COVID-19 cannot be expected to produce certificates from a tehsildar or social welfare officer before seeking admission in the hospital, the bench noted and asked the hospital to deposit ₹10 lakh in court within two weeks.