Investor's Corner

Tesla shareholder’s legal team adjusts demand to $1.44 billion in fees for Musk pay case

Credit: Tesla China

Published

1 year ago

June 22, 2024

Simon Alvarez

The legal team of Tesla shareholder Richard Tornetta, who filed a legal complaint against Elon Musk’s 2018 CEO Performance Award, has adjusted their plaintiff fee request to the Delaware Court. Tornetta’s legal team noted that they could adjust their proposed fee to just $73,948 per hour, which would amount to a cash award of roughly $1.44 billion.

The Tornetta vs. Musk case became a notable issue for the electric vehicle maker back in January when Judge Kathaleen McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery rescinded Musk’s 2018 CEO Performance Award. For their work in the case, Tornetta’s legal team argued that they should be granted 29.4 million TSLA shares. Such an amount would be worth over $5 billion, or more than $200,000 per hour.

Tesla has argued against Tornetta’s legal team’s arguments. As noted in a Reuters report, the electric vehicle maker argued that the legal team of the Tesla shareholder — who held nine shares when he filed his complaint against Musk’s 2018 pay package — should be paid just about $13.6 million for their work. Longtime Tesla retail shareholder Amy Steffens has also secured legal counsel to challenge the $200,000 per hour fee request of Tornetta’s attorneys.

In their recent filing, Tornetta’s legal team proposed an alternative way of looking at the fees for their work in the case. While the legal team rejected Tesla’s $13.6 million legal fee argument, and while the attorneys still argued that the court should strongly consider granting them over 29 million TSLA shares as payment, they noted that the Court could go for a cash-based alternative structure instead. Such a system would lower their hourly rate to $73,948, and would result in a payment of around $1.44 billion.

$73,948 per hour is unacceptable and highly inappropriate to request.

The ABA Rules for Professional Conduct, specifically Rule 1.5(a) states: “A lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge, or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for expenses…”

In short,… https://t.co/kItq68oBAK— Jade (@ImUsuallyRighTT) June 22, 2024

Following are sections of the filing from Tornetta’s lawyers.

“While Plaintiff’s Counsel sincerely believe the award sought is appropriate, earned, and indeed conservative under Delaware law—the Action did, after all, rescind an ‘unfathomable’ $55B compensation package, the largest in history by multiples—Plaintiff’s Counsel acknowledge the requested award, if granted, would be record-setting and the subject of significant commentary. Were the Court concerned by the requested award’s size and desirous of a different approach, there are other alternatives available that address the expressed concerns about “windfalls.”

“Specifically, $35,000/hour cannot be a ‘windfall’ because that hourly rate was awarded by this Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court over a decade ago in Southern Peru. Adjusted to today’s dollars, a $35,000 hourly rate would be over $55,600/hour. It follows, a fortiori, that for a substantial verdict on the order of Southern Peru, an award of at least $55,600/hour is not a ‘windfall.’

“Indeed, even Tesla argues that this Action created compensable value equal to its calculation of the Grant’s $2.3B GDFV. But even using this low-end value estimate, the benefit Plaintiff achieved here was significantly higher than the $1.347B (pre-interest) Southern Peru benefit. Thus, a low-end cash award of roughly $1.0842B could be fashioned based solely on the affirmed, inflation-adjusted Southern Peru numbers.

“But any such award would be unfairly low for two reasons. First, as noted in Plaintiff’s Opening Brief, this Court in Southern Peru—after admonishing plaintiff’s counsel to seek a conservative fee given ‘the reality [that] their own delays affected the remedy awarded’—further reduced that request by one-third as a penalty for counsel taking so long to prosecute the case that rescission was impossible. Second, the ~$51B benefit achieved here is approximately 38x higher than the benefit achieved in Southern Peru.

“Adjusting for the one-third penalty assessed in Southern Peru—which was applied to an already conservative 22.5% request by that plaintiff—brings the inflation-adjusted lodestar to $73,948/hour, which yields a fee of approximately $1.44B. Adjusting further to reflect the much higher result here is a matter of the Court’s discretion Plaintiff’s Counsel would submit that exercising the Court’s discretion to award a cash fee of roughly twice the inflation-adjusted Southern Peru hourly rate after reversing for the discount appropriately reflects the substantially greater benefit achieved here,” Tornetta’s lawyers wrote.

The fling from Tornetta’s lawyers can be viewed below (via Plainsite).

gov.uscourts.delch.2018-0408-KSJM.387.0 by Simon Alvarez on Scribd

Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.

Investor's Corner

Shareholder group urges Nasdaq probe into Elon Musk’s Tesla 2025 CEO Interim Award

The SOC Investment Group represents pension funds tied to more than two million union members, many of whom hold shares in TSLA.

Published

4 hours ago

August 22, 2025

Simon Alvarez

Credit: xAI/X

An investment group is urging Nasdaq to investigate Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) over its recent $29 billion equity award for CEO Elon Musk.

The SOC Investment Group, which represents pension funds tied to more than two million union members—many of whom hold shares in TSLA—sent a letter to the exchange citing “serious concerns” that the package sidestepped shareholder approval and violated compensation rules.

Concerns over Tesla’s 2025 CEO Interim Award

In its August 19 letter to Nasdaq enforcement chief Erik Wittman, SOC alleged that Tesla’s board improperly granted Musk a “2025 CEO Interim Award” under the company’s 2019 Equity Incentive Plan. That plan, the group noted, explicitly excluded Musk when it was approved by shareholders. SOC argued that the new equity grant effectively expanded the plan to cover Musk, a material change that should have required a shareholder vote under Nasdaq rules.

The $29 billion package was designed to replace Musk’s overturned $56 billion award from 2018, which the Delaware Chancery Court struck down, prompting Tesla to file an appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court. The interim award contains restrictions: Musk must remain in a leadership role until August 2027, and vested shares cannot be sold until 2030, as per a Yahoo Finance report.

Even so, critics such as SOC have argued that the plan does not have of performance targets, calling it a “fog-the-mirror” award. This means that “If you’re around and have enough breath left in you to fog the mirror, you get them,” stated Brian Dunn, the director of the Institute for Comprehension Studies at Cornell University.

They don’t even HAVE an investment with Tesla. They are just a political activist group using a loose relationship with a “coalition of unions” to write letters to advance an agenda that IS NOT making Tesla and AI, robotics and energy leader. Their letter does not include any…— Amy (@_SFTahoe) August 21, 2025

SOC’s Tesla concerns beyond Elon Musk

SOC’s concerns extend beyond the mechanics of Musk’s pay. The group has long questioned the independence of Tesla’s board, opposing the reelection of directors such as Kimbal Musk and James Murdoch. It has also urged regulators to review Tesla’s governance practices, including past proposals to shrink the board.

SOC has also joined initiatives calling for Tesla to adopt comprehensive labor rights policies, including noninterference with worker organizing and compliance with global labor standards. The investment group has also been involved in webinars and resolutions highlighting the risks related to Tesla’s approach to unions, as well as labor issues across several countries.

Tesla has not yet publicly responded to SOC’s latest letter, nor to requests for comment.

The SOC’s letter can be viewed below.

Nasdaq+Letter Tsla Socig Final by Simon Alvarez

Investor's Corner

Tesla investors may be in for a big surprise

All signs point toward a strong quarter for Tesla in terms of deliveries. Investors could be in for a surprise.

Published

1 week ago

August 14, 2025

Joey Klender

(Credit: Tesla)

Tesla investors have plenty of things to be ecstatic about, considering the company’s confidence in autonomy, AI, robotics, cars, and energy. However, many of them may be in for a big surprise as the end of the $7,500 EV tax credit nears. On September 30, it will be gone for good.

This has put some skepticism in the minds of some investors: the lack of a $7,500 discount for buying a clean energy vehicle may deter many people from affording Tesla’s industry-leading EVs.

Tesla warns consumers of huge, time-sensitive change coming soon

The focus on quarterly deliveries, while potentially waning in terms of importance to the future, is still a big indicator of demand, at least as of now. Of course, there are other factors, most of them economic.

The big push to make the most of the final quarter of the EV tax credit is evident, as Tesla is reminding consumers on social media platforms and through email communications that the $7,500 discount will not be here forever. It will be gone sooner rather than later.

It appears the push to maximize sales this quarter before having to assess how much they will be impacted by the tax credit’s removal is working.

Delivery Wait Time Increases

Wait times for Tesla vehicles are increasing due to what appears to be increased demand for the company’s vehicles. Recently, Model Y delivery wait times were increased from 1-3 weeks to 4-6 weeks.

This puts extra pressure on consumers to pull the trigger on an order, as delivery must be completed by the cutoff date of September 30.

Delivery wait times may have gone up due to an increase in demand as consumers push to make a purchase before losing that $7,500 discount.

More People are Ordering

A post on X by notable Tesla influencer Sawyer Merritt anecdotally shows he has been receiving more DMs than normal from people stating that they’re ordering vehicles before the end of the tax credit:

Anecdotally, I’ve been getting more DMs from people ordering Teslas in the past few days than I have in the last couple of years. As expected, the end of the U.S. EV credit next month is driving a big surge in orders.

Lease prices are rising for the 3/Y, delivery wait times are… pic.twitter.com/Y6JN3w2Gmr

— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) August 13, 2025

It’s not necessarily a confirmation of more orders, but it could be an indication that things are certainly looking that way.

Why Investors Could Be Surprised

Tesla investors could see some positive movement in stock price following the release of the Q3 delivery report, especially if all signs point to increased demand this quarter.

We reported previously that this could end up being a very strong rebounding quarter for Tesla, with so many people taking advantage of the tax credit.

Whether the delivery figures will be higher than normal remains to be seen. But all indications seem to point to Q3 being a very strong quarter for Tesla.

Elon Musk

Tesla bear Guggenheim sees nearly 50% drop off in stock price in new note

Tesla bear Guggenheim does not see any upside in Robotaxi.

Published

1 week ago

August 14, 2025

Joey Klender

Credit: Tesla

Tesla bear Guggenheim is still among the biggest non-believers in the company’s overall mission and its devotion to solving self-driving.

In a new note to investors on Thursday, analyst Ronald Jewsikow reiterated his price target of $175, a nearly 50 percent drop off, with a ‘Sell’ rating, all based on skepticism regarding Tesla’s execution of the Robotaxi platform.

A few days ago, Tesla CEO Elon Musk said the company’s Robotaxi platform would open to the public in September, offering driverless rides to anyone in the Austin area within its geofence, which is roughly 90 square miles large.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk confirms Robotaxi is opening to the public: here’s when

However, Jewsikow’s skepticism regarding this timeline has to do with what’s going on inside of the vehicles. The analyst was willing to give props to Robotaxi, saying that Musk’s estimation of a September public launch would be a “key step” in offering the service to a broader population.

Where Jewsikow’s real issue lies is with Tesla’s lack of transparency on the Safety Monitors, and how bulls are willing to overlook their importance.

Much of this bullish mentality comes from the fact that the Monitors are not sitting in the driver’s seat, and they don’t have anything to do with the overall operation of the vehicle.

Musk also said last month that reducing Safety Monitors could come “in a month or two.”

Instead, they’re just there to make sure everything runs smoothly.

Jewsikow said:

“While safety drivers will remain, and no timeline has been provided for their removal, bulls have been willing to overlook the optics of safety drivers in TSLA vehicles, and we see no reason why that would change now.”

He also commented on Musk’s recent indication that Tesla was working on a 10x parameter count that could help make Full Self-Driving even more accurate. It could be one of the pieces to Tesla solving autonomy.

Jewsikow added:

“Perhaps most importantly for investors bullish on TSLA for the fleet of potential FSD-enabled vehicles today, the 10x higher parameter count will be able to run on the current generation of FSD hardware and inference compute.”