News
Elon Musk’s SolarCity trial day 1: Arguments, quotes, and testy exchanges
As he faced a lawsuit from Tesla shareholders about the SolarCity acquisition in 2016, Elon Musk was firm in the notion that he didn’t have any sway over the company’s board when it approved the deal. Musk highlighted this point on Monday, as he testified in a Delaware courtroom as part of a lawsuit filed by Tesla shareholders, who alleged that both the CEO and the company’s board breached fiduciary duties when they decided to acquire SolarCity.
When SolarCity was acquired by Tesla, Musk was the chair of the company and its largest shareholder. The CEO later noted that the acquisition was a “no brainer,” and it was completed with over 85% of TSLA shareholders voting in favor of the deal. Considering Musk’s ties to SolarCity and the solar installer company’s financial fluctuations at the time, however, critics argued that the deal was essentially a bailout. Musk was also accused of vowing retaliation against any Tesla director who voted against the acquisition.
According to Musk, Tesla’s now-Chairwoman Robyn Denholm was the one who set the final price of the deal, as well as the terms of the SolarCity acquisition. Musk noted that he was kept abreast on the basic progress of the deal, but he was otherwise recused. The CEO also stated that the notion of him controlling Tesla shareholders was implausible. “I don’t think it’s possible to control” big institutional investors like Fidelity and T. Rowe Price,” Musk said.
Things heated up when Musk started responding to questions from Randy Baron, the plaintiff’s lawyer who had already traded barbs with the CEO in the past. From the start, Baron gave Musk “fair warning” that “we have a long way to go,” and that his questioning would probably take all day and well into Tuesday. Musk joked, stating that he could tell the questioning would be long due to the size of Baron’s binder.
As part of his cross-examination, Baron showed a slide showing how far below forecasts was the amount of solar energy Tesla has deployed since its acquisition of SolarCity, especially as the solar provider was one of the US’ most dominant players in the residential solar market before it was integrated with the EV maker. Musk responded that 2017 to 2019 were the “three hardest years of (his) entire career” and that he was working hard to save Tesla at the time. After this, the pandemic shut down government permitting offices, which was a challenge to the US residential solar market. When Baron warned him that things would be really slow if Musk kept elaborating on his answers, the CEO noted that “some of your questions are tricky and deceptive.”
Musk and Baron’s exchanges only got more heated as the day wore on. When Baron asked Musk if he ever “rage fired” anyone or treated people with derision, the CEO noted that he gives “clear and frank feedback which may be construed as derision,” but he did not “rage fire” anyone. The lawyer then played several clips of Musk’s deposition showing his tense exchanges with the CEO. “That was openly derisive not for some benefit of Tesla, but because you didn’t like what was happening, correct?” Baron asked in an apparent attempt at provoking Musk.
Musk later said that he does not respect Baron because he worked for Milberg Weiss, a law firm whose partners were imprisoned for paying kickbacks to expert witnesses and plaintiffs; and Robbins Geller, whose partners also ended up incarcerated. “You were mentored by criminals. Then you continued to be mentored by criminals and that is why I do not respect you… I have great respect for the court, but not for you. I think you are a bad human being,” Musk said, later accusing Baron of being a “professional bully” who used his words to cut. “That’s very sad,” the CEO remarked.
Other loaded exchanges between Musk and Baron happened after the lawyer asked the CEO if he does not like it when people tell him what to do. Musk calmly responded that this was not exactly the case. “In fact, if I’m not mistaken, I view critical feedback as a gift,” Musk stated. This point could be confirmed by Musk’s reception to critical feedback from automotive veteran Sandy Munro, who heavily criticized the Model 3’s design in a teardown. Musk also added that if it were up to him, he would rather just work as an engineer.
“To be honest, I don’t want to be the boss of anything. I won’t want to be CEO. I tried not to be CEO of Tesla, but I had to, or it would die. I rather hate being a boss. I’m an engineer,” Musk said.
Amidst Musk’s exchanges with Baron, however, the CEO’s point was clear. SolarCity, like any aggressive startup in a high-growth industry, had a tendency to have negative cash flow. Musk noted that Amazon was an example of this, and so was Tesla, and yet, both companies are thriving now. Simply put, the CEO argued that SolarCity’s financial strains when it was acquired were not out of the norm, as even Tesla was in the same place at the time, and if needed, the solar company could have just raised capital.
“Daring enterprises burn cash and take risks to achieve something worthwhile, or even great. Tesla was subject to those risks as much as SolarCity was, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t both worthy ventures. So can’t we acknowledge that even my once-stumbling solar efforts are starting to bear fruit?” Musk noted.
The first day of Elon Musk’s SolarCity trial was adjourned until 9:15 a.m. ET on Tuesday. The CEO is expected to continue his cross-examination with the plaintiff’s lawyer.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
