Last Updated on 08/29/2022 by てんしょく飯
The discovery that prominent U.S. industrialist Elon Musk had twins with a female executive at the startup company he founded has raised questions that go beyond conventional corporate governance.
Whether the code of conduct has been violated.
Reuters interviewed nine experts who had widely divergent interpretations of whether Musk’s and others’ actions violated the company’s code of conduct.
Musk is best known as the owner of Tesla, the electric vehicle (EV) giant, and SpaceX, the space exploration company, but he is also the CEO of Neuralink, which develops semiconductors that connect the human brain to machines. He is also the CEO of Neuralink, which develops semiconductors that connect the human brain to machines. The company employs about 300 people.
On July 6, Business Insider, a U.S. economic news site, citing confidential court documents, reported that Musk, 51, and one of his direct reports at Neuralink, Chevon Gillis, were arrested on July 6. The report stated that twins were born last November to Mr. Musk, 51, and Sibon Gillis, 36, one of NuLaLink’s direct subordinates.
According to five sources familiar with the situation, Jiris later told her colleagues that she was not romantically involved with Musk and that the twins were conceived through in vitro fertilization. Reuters has not been able to confirm whether Jillis’ explanation is accurate.
We requested comment from Mr. Musk’s spokespeople and Ms. Jiris, but they did not respond.
Personal relationships between superiors and subordinates are usually frowned upon, and there have been cases of prominent CEOs being ousted. Experts say such relationships violate most corporate norms and raise concerns about conflicts of interest.
Reuters reviewed Neuralink’s employee handbook, which consists of 62 pages. According to the handbook, dating, “personal relationships,” and “close personal friendships” between employees in direct supervisor-subordinate relationships are prohibited to avoid conflicts of interest.
However, the relationship between Mr. Musk and Ms. Gillis was so unusual that corporate governance experts were widely divided on whether it violated the handbook’s norms.
Nell Minow, vice chairman of Value Edge Advisors, a corporate governance consultancy, noted, “The lawyers who wrote this text must not have envisioned this situation. The intent of the code of conduct is to avoid conflicts of interest arising from relationships between employees, but Musk’s situation seems to be caught in a “blind spot,” he said.
Neuralink’s code of conduct requires that any relationship that could give rise to a conflict of interest be reported to the director of human resources. This is so that the company can determine whether it should take steps to eliminate the conflict of interest.
Reuters was unable to confirm whether Mr. Musk or Ms. Gillis had reported the relationship to the human resources director. The human resources director did not respond to a request for comment.
According to the sources, Neuralink accepted Ms. Gillis’ explanation that the relationship was not romantic, and Ms. Gillis continues to serve as a special projects executive and in other capacities. According to two other sources, Mr. Musk and Ms. Gillis continue to cooperate in their work.
room for interpretation
Four corporate governance experts interviewed by Reuters said that Ms. Jiris’s having a child with Mr. Musk through artificial insemination should fall under the definition of “personal relationship” or “close friendship” in Neuralink’s Code of Conduct.
The Code defines a personal relationship as “a relationship of a romantic or intimate nature” between employees who are not married to the other. It does not define “intimate friendships.”
Gabriel Rotterberg, a professor of corporate law at the University of Michigan, noted that the relationship between Mr. Musk and Ms. Gillis “is an intimate relationship on top of a professional relationship. He said, “There is always a concern that the one with greater power will improperly exercise that professional power.”
The remaining five experts responded that no definitive conclusion could be drawn that Mr. Musk’s relationship with Ms. Gillis did not violate the company’s code of conduct or that no definitive conclusion could be drawn.
Usha Rodriguez, a professor at the University of Georgia Law School, said that their relationship “may fall under the category of ‘close friendship’ if there is an ongoing joint custodial relationship, but it is up to interpretation.
Reuters was unable to obtain information on the extent of Musk’s involvement with the twins. According to court documents reported by Business Insider, the two asked that the twins take the Musk surname; they also provided the same Texas address.
Joan Heminway, a professor at the University of Tennessee College of Law, said that even if the two had done in vitro fertilization, they could not easily prove that they were intimately involved, which “adds a new twist” to the case.
コメント