Tesla shareholders (TSLA) have accused Musk of forcing Tesla’s board to buy SolarCity, a rooftop solar panel maker, to save its investment, and have sought up to $ 13 billion in damages. The decision comes when Musk used his huge fortune to acquire Twitter (TWTR), which accepted his $ 44 billion offer on Monday. It also followed a separate court ruling earlier in the day, rejecting Musk’s proposal to end surveillance of his Tesla tweets.
“The predominance of evidence reveals that Tesla paid a fair price – SolarCity cost at least what Tesla paid for it, and the acquisition would otherwise be very beneficial for Tesla,” said Vice Chancellor Joseph Slices in court. of Delaware’s office.
The decision could be appealed, and a shareholder’s lawyer said he was assessing potential next steps.
“The case is for loyalty. The court’s decision acknowledges that Elon Musk was controversial and there were omissions in the process,” said Randall Barron, the plaintiffs’ lawyer.
There was no immediate response from Tesla or Musk.
Slytes said Musk was more involved than he should have been, but the fair price for SolarCity outweighed claims that the deal had unfairly enriched Musk.
The ruling follows a 10-day trial in July that included nearly two full days of testimony from Musk.
Union pension funds and asset managers say Musk commanded Tesla’s SolarCity talks, while publicly claiming he was “completely removed.”
Slytes said Musk had been involved in the board’s discussions several times, but he also noted several instances where the board opposed Musk and refused to follow his wishes, such as the timing of the deal.
The all-share deal was valued at $ 2.6 billion in 2016.
Since then, the share price of Tesla has risen, inflating the value of what Musk received from the purchase of SolarCity and, in turn, the compensation demanded by the plaintiffs.
Musk, the world’s richest man with a fortune of about $ 265.6 billion, according to Forbes, owned about 22 percent of the two companies at the time.
Add Comment