The judge who ruled against Musk is ruling that board decisions are debatable when someone has majority control over its decisions. This suggests that ALL of the board's decisions made while Musk held majority control are debatable.
I found this to be a really interesting article, both in the general "just because someone owns a majority of the company the board is not required to just do what they say because they represent the interests of all stockholders", but also a few other points - I assumed Musk owned much more of Tesla as a result of his stealing it from the actual founders, and even now we still don't know what Altman did/did not do that resulted in the absurd OpenAI train wreck a few weeks back.
