By Jonathan Stempel
Last Updated at March 13, 2021 03:55 IST
By Jonathan Stempel
According to a complaint unsealed late Thursday in Delaware Chancery Court, which also names the electric car company’s board as defendants, Musk’s “erratic” tweets and the failure of Tesla directors to ensure he complied with the SEC settlement have exposed shareholders to billions of dollars of losses.
The complaint highlighted several Musk posts on social media platform Twitter, including his assessment last May 1 that Tesla’s stock price was “too high,” prompting a more than $13 billion tumble in Tesla’s market value.
Chase Gharrity, the plaintiff, said Musk’s actions and the directors’ inaction have caused “substantial financial harm,” and that they should pay damages to Palo Alto, California-based Tesla for breaching their fiduciary duties.
The lawsuit was filed even though Tesla’s share price has soared nearly fivefold since Musk’s “too high” tweet, giving Tesla a valuation well above $600 billion, and the SEC has not publicly accused Musk of recent violations.
“It could pressure the SEC into taking some sort of recourse,” said Charles Elson, a University of Delaware professor and corporate governance specialist.
Tesla did not immediately respond on Friday to requests for comment. Gharrity’s lawyers, Musk’s lawyers in the SEC case, and the SEC did not immediately respond to similar requests.
The SEC settlement followed Musk’s August 2018 tweet that he had “funding secured” to possibly take Tesla private in a $72 billion transaction. In reality, Musk was not close.
Musk and Tesla each paid $20 million in civil fines, and Tesla lawyers agreed to vet some of Musk’s tweets in advance.
The settlement was later amended to clarify when pre-approvals were required, prompted by a unvetted tweet by Musk about Tesla’s vehicle production forecast.
Last April, a San Francisco federal judge said Tesla and Musk must face a lawsuit claiming Musk’s going-private tweet defrauded shareholders. That case remains pending.
The case is Gharrity v Musk et al, Delaware Chancery Court, No. 2021-0199.
(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York, Hyunjoo Jin in San Francisco, and Chavi Mehta in Bengaluru; Editing by Sriraj Kalluvila and Rosalba O’Brien)
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Business Standard has always strived hard to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that are of interest to you and have wider political and economic implications for the country and the world. Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering have only made our resolve and commitment to these ideals stronger. Even during these difficult times arising out of covid-19, we continue to remain committed to keeping you informed and updated with credible news, authoritative views and incisive commentary on topical issues of relevance.
We, however, have a request.
As we battle the economic impact of the pandemic, we need your support even more, so that we can continue to offer you more quality content. Our subscription model has seen an encouraging response from many of you, who have subscribed to our online content. More subscription to our online content can only help us achieve the goals of offering you even better and more relevant content. We believe in free, fair and credible journalism. Your support through more subscriptions can help us practise the journalism to which we are committed.
Support quality journalism and subscribe to Business Standard.