Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database
Collection

In re Tesla Motors, Inc. Stockholder Litigation

In re Tesla Motors, Inc. Stockholder Litigation 

12711-VCSDel. Ch.4 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
04/27/2022
Decision
Verdict for the defense.
The Delaware Court of Chancery ruled for Elon Musk and members of the Tesla board of directors on claims that they breached their fiduciary duties and engaged in other wrongdoing in connection with Tesla’s 2016 acquisition of the solar energy company SolarCity Corporation, which had liquidity issues. At the time, Musk was the chairman of the SolarCity board of directors and its largest stockholder. The court noted that Musk had authored and released a “Master Plan” in 2006 that declared that Tesla would “accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy,” and that SolarCity was “part of this vision” and “specifically mentioned in the Master Plan.” The judge concluded that Musk “was undoubtedly involved in the deal process in ways he should not have been, but fortunately, the Tesla Board ensured nevertheless that the process led to a fair price.” Among other things, the judge concluded that “synergies,” including creation of an “integrated sustainable energy company,” were “a strong rationale” for the acquisition. The court found that “there can be no doubt that the combination with SolarCity has allowed Tesla to become what it has for years told the market and its stockholders it strives to be—an agent of change that will ‘accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy’ by ‘help[ing] to expedite the move from a mine-and-burn hydrocarbon economy towards a solar electric economy.’” The court found no basis to conclude that a “fairer price” was available and therefore concluded that the price paid was “entirely fair,” which was not consistent with a breach of fiduciary duty.
02/04/2020
Decision
Plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment denied and defendants' motion for summary judgment granted in part and denied in part.
04/18/2019
Stipulation
Court approved stipulated order of class certification.
03/16/2017
Complaint
Second amended verified class action and derivative complaint filed.
After the cases challenging Tesla's acquisition of SolarCity were consolidated, an amended complaint, and then a second amended complaint, were filed. The operative complaint no longer contained allegations regarding the acquisition's purported role in company founder Elon Musk's efforts to combat climate change, including the allegations from at least one original complaint that Tesla’s proposed acquisition of SolarCity—a company that the complaint alleged was started “to support Musk’s quest to fix climate change”— was driven by Musk’s desire to “ensure his legacy to change the world” by shifting to a solar electric economy.

Prasinos v. Musk 

12723Del. Ch.2 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
10/19/2016
Decision
Actions consolidated.
On October 19, 2016, seven lawsuits challenging Tesla's acquisition were consolidated.
09/06/2016
Complaint
Stockholder derivative complaint filed.
A Tesla Motors, Inc. (Tesla) stockholder filed a stockholder derivative complaint asserting that Tesla’s proposed acquisition of SolarCity Corporation (SolarCity) would cause substantial damage to Tesla. Tesla is in the energy storage and electric car business. SolarCity describes itself as “America's #1 full-service solar provider.” The defendants were Tesla co-founder, chairman, and chief executive officer Elon Musk; other Tesla board members; SolarCity, for which Musk is chairman and the largest stockholder; other SolarCity directors and officers; and a Tesla subsidiary created for the purpose of acquiring SolarCity. The complaint, filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, stated claims of breach of fiduciary duty, waste, and unjust enrichment. It is one of at least four complaints filed in the court in connection with the SolarCity acquisition. The complaint asserted that Tesla’s proposed acquisition of SolarCity—a company that the complaint alleged was started “to support Musk’s quest to fix climate change”— was driven by Musk’s desire to “ensure his legacy to change the world” by shifting to a solar electric economy. The complaint alleged that the acquisition was intended to protect Musk and his family’s and friends’ financial interests, and that the acquisition would not be in the best interests of Tesla and its shareholders.

In re Tesla Motors, Inc. Stockholder Litigation 

181,2022Del.1 entry
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
06/06/2023
Decision
Verdict for the defense affirmed.
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery’s determination that Tesla’s 2016 acquisition of the solar energy company SolarCity Corporation was “entirely fair.” The Supreme Court found that the trial record supported the Chancery Court’s decision and that the Chancer Court committed no reversible error in its application of the entire fairness test, which requires scrutiny of both fair dealing and fair price. Among other things, the Supreme Court rejected the appellants’ contention that the trial court erred when it relied on the potential synergies of the acquisition as evidence of the fairness of the price. The Supreme Court said “synergistic values are a relevant input for a court to consider in assessing the entire fairness of an acquisition,” including in this case where potential synergies related to the objective of making Tesla an integrated, sustainable energy company were a motivator for the transaction.