- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- United States
- /
- Delaware
- /
- In re Tesla Motors, Inc. Stockholder Litigation
In re Tesla Motors, Inc. Stockholder Litigation
Geography
Year
2016
Document Type
Litigation
Part of
About this case
Filing year
2016
Status
Verdict for the defense.
Geography
Docket number
12711-VCS
Court/admin entity
United States → State Courts → Delaware Court of Chancery (Del. Ch.)
Case category
Securities and Financial Regulation (US)
Principal law
United States → State Law—Common Law
At issue
Claims against proposed acquisition of SolarCity Corporation by Tesla Motors, Inc.
Topics
, ,
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics
Beta
Search results
04/27/2022
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.
Decision
–
02/04/2020
Plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment denied and defendants' motion for summary judgment granted in part and denied in part.
Decision
–
04/18/2019
Court approved stipulated order of class certification.
Stipulation
–
03/16/2017
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.
Complaint
–
Summary
Claims against proposed acquisition of SolarCity Corporation by Tesla Motors, Inc.
Topics mentioned most in this case Beta
See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more
Group
Topics
Policy instrument
Risk
Impacted group
Just transition
Renewable energy
Fossil fuel
Economic sector
Finance