The judge has done nothing of the sort.

Judge McCormick is the chief judge of these courts and is one of the most reasonable and well regarded jurists you will find.

You would be hard pressed to find lawyers that think she is biased, unreasonable, or unfair regardless of whether they won or lost in her courtroom.

No limits of any law were pushed here. It is a well reasoned, well explained, application of existing law.

Is there some reason to smear the judge here?

You can argue literally anything - but it's highly doubtful that this rises to anything resembling judicial misconduct. The appeal would have to go to the US Supreme Court.

Ruling is here [https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=359340] but this part seems instructive:

> The plan offers Musk the opportunity to secure 12 total tranches of options, each representing 1% of Tesla’s total outstanding shares as of January 21, 2018. For a tranche to vest, Tesla’s market capitalization must increase by $50 billion and Tesla must achieve either an adjusted EBITDA target or a revenue target in four consecutive fiscal quarters. With a $55.8 billion maximum value and $2.6 billion grant date fair value, the plan is the largest potential compensation opportunity ever observed in public markets by multiple orders of magnitude—250 times larger than the contemporaneous median peer compensation plan and over 33 times larger than the plan’s closest comparison, which was Musk’s prior compensation plan. This posttrial decision enters judgment for the plaintiff, finding that the compensation plan is subject to review under the entire fairness standard, the defendants bore the burden of proving that the compensation plan was fair, and they failed to meet their burden.

The lack of indepdence of the Tesla Comp. Committee was one big issue the judge found;

> The process leading to the approval of Musk’s compensation plan was deeply flawed. Musk had extensive ties with the persons tasked with negotiating on Tesla’s behalf. He had a 15-year relationship with the compensation committee chair, Ira Ehrenpreis. The other compensation committee member placed on the working group, Antonio Gracias, had business relationships with Musk dating back over 20 years, as well as the sort of personal relationship that had him vacationing with Musk’s family on a regular basis. The working group included management members who were beholden to Musk, such as General Counsel Todd Maron who was Musk’s former divorce attorney and whose admiration for Musk moved him to tears during his deposition. In fact, Maron was a primary gobetween Musk and the committee, and it is unclear on whose side Maron viewed himself. Yet many of the documents cited by the defendants as proof of a fair process were drafted by Maron.

> The appeal would have to go to the US Supreme Court.

The appeal would go to the Delaware Supreme Court.

… Revenge for _what_?

I think it’s probably just that there aren’t _that_ many Delaware chancery judges, and he’s kind of a frequent flier.

It could, and it certainly will be by Elon.

But it also could be, that Elon is completely disregarding the law, and has for years.

This will become very apparent soon(ish) as there will be more trails, against him and against Tesla.

> One could argue this judge has pushed the limits of the law (...)

Who would argue that? And what does that actually mean? Do you have any concrete example that helps explain what you have in mind?

They definitely are "ruling that even the mega-rich should still have to follow the law", which to some might be interpreted as being controversial and "pushing the limits".

Also never forget that both sides in these courts are often the rich. And other side might have more political connections.

> They definitely are "ruling that even the mega-rich should still have to follow the law" (...)

What are you talking about? That's the foundation of a legal system in a free and open society: equality before the law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_before_the_law

> (...) which to some might be interpreted as being controversial and "pushing the limits".

Who are these "some"? And what basis is there to even suggest any sort of discrimination?

This line of insinuation is absurd, and suggests some despair in finding anything to grab onto.