The judge noted, among other things, that a stockholder vote standing alone cannot ratify a conflicted-controller transaction. "Even if a stockholder vote could have a ratifying effect, it could not do so here due to multiple, material misstatements in the proxy statement," she added. Meanwhile, McCormick found that the $5.6 billion fee request by the shareholder's attorneys, which at one time approached $7 billion based on Tesla's trading price, went too far. "In a case about excessive compensation, that was a bold ask," McCormick wrote. Attorneys for the Tesla shareholder argue that their work resulted in the "massive" benefit of returning shares to Tesla that otherwise would have gone to Musk and diluted the stock held by other Tesla investors. They value that benefit at $51.4 billion, using the difference between the stock price at the time of McCormick's January ruling and the strike price of some 304 million stock options granted to Musk.