News
Tesla investor’s legal team urges DE court to respect Musk pay ratification vote
Tesla shareholders ratified Elon Musk’s 2018 CEO Performance Award at the 2024 Cyber Roundup, but the fight about the matter in Delaware Court is not over just yet. This was highlighted in a joinder filed by the legal team of a TSLA investor who decided to challenge the astronomical fee request of the lawyers of shareholder Richard Tornetta, who filed a legal complaint about Musk’s 2018 pay package at a time when he held just nine shares of the EV maker.
Tornetta’s legal team has argued that they deserve to be paid over 29 million shares of TSLA for their services in the case, which translated to over $5 billion at the time or over $200,000 per hour. Tesla shareholder Amy Steffens, a longtime investor of Tesla with over 19,000 shares, secured her own legal team to challenge the fee request of Tornetta’s lawyers. Following the decision of Tesla investors to ratify Musk’s pay package at the 2024 Cyber Roundup, Tornetta’s legal team argued that the ratification of the CEO’s pay package was invalid since investors were still “coerced” and “uninformed.” The lawyers also described the events that transpired leading up to the ratification of Musk’s pay package as a “clown show.”
Steffens’ legal team has now submitted a joinder for the case, which will hopefully be heard later this week when the court is expected to hold a hearing for the motion to reconsider the Delaware Judge’s preliminary ruling in the case. The joinder, parts of which were shared on X by Tesla investor Alexandra Merz, argued that the ratification of Musk’s pay package by TSLA shareholders showed that Tornetta’s complaint against the CEO Performance Award “provided no tangible economic benefit to Tesla or its stockholders.” Steffens’ legal team also highlighted that contrary to the claims of Tornetta’s lawyers, the shareholder vote on Musk’s pay plan is likely among the most informed stockholder votes in Delaware history.
2/ pic.twitter.com/yR15N66cbM— Ale?andra Merz ?? (@TeslaBoomerMama) July 30, 2024
“The Ratification Vote was fully informed indeed, it is likely among the most informed votes in Delaware corporate history. The extensive proxy filings included this Court’s rescission opinion, so Tesla’s stockholders were well aware of the issues identified by this Court prior to their ratification vote. The ratification issue was robustly debated online, on television, and in newspapers. Opponents— including Mr. Tornetta’s experts in this litigation made their voices heard.’ When the votes came in, Mr. Tornetta lost decisively: 72% of disinterested voting shares favored ratification,” the lawyers wrote.
4/ pic.twitter.com/xc0k1Zsq9A— Ale?andra Merz ?? (@TeslaBoomerMama) July 30, 2024
Steffens’ legal team also addressed the “clown show” comment from Tornetta’s attorneys. “Mr. Tornetta’s counsel disparages this exercise of stockholder democracy as a ‘clown show.’ It is anything but. Ms. Steffens and Tesla’s other stockholders had all the relevant facts before them, including this Court’s decision, and determined that the 2018 Grant benefited them more than rescission. When stockholders freely petition their elected board for a vote, and then overwhelmingly affirm a board’s decision by voting to uphold it, further litigation by a derivative plaintiff attacking that democratically determined result is neither necessary nor appropriate,” Steffens’ legal team noted.
The longtime Tesla investors’ legal team urged the court to respect TSLA stockholders’ democracy as well. “Even beyond Due Process concerns, respect for stockholder democracy commends limiting Plaintiff’s continuing role in light of the Ratification Vote. Here, the question goes beyond Mr. Tornetta’s adequacy to the source of his authority. When Mr. Tornetta steps into the shoes of Tesla as a derivative plaintiff, he does so without democratic legitimacy. Tesla’s stockholders can vote out their directors, but they lack any democratic means to revoke Mr. Tornetta’s authority as a plaintiff.
??— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 30, 2024
“Ms. Steffens respectfully suggests that in this specific context-where a supermajority of fully-informed, uncoerced stockholders unambiguously repudiates the relief obtained by a derivative plaintiff-the Court should treat this as a vote of no confidence and withdraw Mr. Tornetta’s authority to act on behalf of the Company. At the very least, where a plaintiff has shown himself willing to pay his counsel hundreds of thousands of dollars per hour to engage in legal work that conflicts directly with the wishes of the vast majority of stockholders, those stockholders should have some means (through the ballot box or the courtroom) to eliminate that plaintiff’s authority to continue to engage in such damaging conduct while purporting to act on their behalf,” the longtime TSLA shareholder’s legal team wrote.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk seems to have appreciated the efforts of the TSLA stockholder’s legal team. Responding to a post about the matter on social media platform X, Musk responded to the shareholder’s efforts with a couple of “lit” emojis.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
A Texas man has been arrested and charged with manslaughter after his Tesla crashed into a home last month, striking a woman inside and killing her. The driver, Michael Butler, claimed the vehicle was in self-driving mode, but information from Tesla shows that Butler overrode the system.
Butler was arrested on Wednesday and booked at the Harris County, Texas, jail. He remained in custody through Thursday and Friday; he did not enter a plea, and his next court hearing is scheduled for Monday.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
There are a handful of new clues in the case that could clear Tesla of any wrongdoing, especially as the woman who was killed’s family, the Avilas, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Tesla and Butler, seeking at least $1 million in damages.
Charging documents from the Harris County prosecutor now show that Butler, who was working DoorDash the evening of the accident, had been using Full Self-Driving mode without incident through the duration of multiple deliveries that evening.
In the moments leading up to the crash, while in FSD and approaching a left turn, Butler pressed the accelerator pedal, overriding FSD’s speed control, and continued to push it until it reached 100 percent. This caused rapid acceleration; the brake pedal was never pressed, and there is no data to show that Butler aimed to turn away from the curb or house.
The charging documents state:
“I noted that the brake pedal was never pressed in the final minute before the crash. I also did not see any data to indicate that the driver attempted to turn away from the curb that he eventually struck. Further, I observed that no mechanical error was detected or recorded by the vehicle before BUTLER and the Tesla struck the curb.”
Additionally, a forensic analysis of Butler’s phone showed that he searched Google around the time of the crash with queries questioning why FSD was “too timid,” “not aggressive enough,” and even searched, “FSD is not aggressive enough for city driving.”
The documents outlined this:
“Investigator Veal also informed me that he had received BUTLER’s cell phone from Deputy Amad and that HDAO digital forensics team had completed a data extraction and download of the phone. Multiple Google searches related to Tesla had been made from BUTLER’s phone in the months leading up the crash. I noted multiple searches in May of 2026 indicating an apparent frustration with Tesla’s FSD mode, including the following searches: “Tesla fsd not aggressive enough 2026 model,” “Tesla fsd not [sic) aggressive enough 2026,” “FSD is not aggressive enough for city driving,” and “tesla fsd too timid.”‘
Tesla had claimed just after the crash that its internal data showed Butler had overridden the system’s speed control and pressed the accelerator completely, causing the vehicle to travel at an excessive rate of speed. Eventually, the car slammed into Avila’s house, killing her.
Butler has now been formally charged with Manslaughter, a felony.
Tesla shocked with its quarterly delivery report yesterday by reporting it delivered 480,126 vehicles in the second quarter of 2026, a 25 percent year-over-year jump that crushed Wall Street estimates of roughly 400,000–408,000 units. Production reached 451,758, with Model 3 and Model Y accounting for the vast majority.
The result ended two years of annual delivery declines and drew down inventory, signaling demand that outpaced earlier production.
Tesla bears had long warned that the expiration of the U.S. federal EV tax credit would hammer demand. Without the $7,500 incentive, they argued, American buyers would balk at higher effective prices, leading to a sharp slowdown.
Will Tesla thrive without the EV tax credit? Five reasons why they might
That narrative has not played out as predicted. While U.S. EV sales faced broader headwinds, Tesla’s global numbers held firm, underscoring the company’s ability to offset domestic pressure through other levers.
There are several plausible factors that explain Tesla’s strength during this quarter. Let’s take a look at them:
Rising Gas Prices
Rising gas prices provided a powerful tailwind, especially in the U.S.
Geopolitical tensions tied to the Iran conflict pushed fuel costs higher earlier in the year, amplifying the lifetime savings of electric vehicles. Even as oil prices later moderated, the psychological and financial impact lingered, encouraging fleet operators and private buyers to accelerate EV purchases. European sales rebounded sharply, helping drive the quarter’s outperformance.
Full Self-Driving Adoption
Advances in Full Self-Driving (FSD) supervised software also appear to have boosted appeal. Tesla expanded FSD availability in select European markets and continued refining the system.
No complaints from me because I finally got to enjoy this drive on FSD; I usually like to manually drive down this mountain https://t.co/RBFniRPSR0 pic.twitter.com/XQ5sOpN1Yg
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 26, 2026
For tech-oriented buyers, the promise of future autonomy and enhanced driver-assistance features adds perceived value beyond the car itself. This differentiation helps Tesla stand out in a crowded market where competitors focus primarily on hardware and basic range.
Pricing Strategy, Affordable Configurations
Tesla’s offerings and its pricing strategy during Q2 further stimulated demand. Tesla introduced lower-cost versions of the Model 3 and Model Y, widening accessibility without sacrificing core margins.
These moves countered affordability concerns and attracted buyers who had been waiting on the sidelines. Combined with attractive financing and leasing options, the pricing strategy converted interest into actual orders more effectively than many analysts expected.
Broad European Recovery
Supported by government incentives, corporate fleet electrification, and easing political headwinds around CEO Elon Musk, Tesla was supplied additional momentum through stronger registration numbers throughout Europe.
Strong exports from the Shanghai Gigafactory and a production ramp at Giga Berlin ensured supply met this resurgent demand. Corporate buyers, in particular, accelerated transitions to EVs to meet sustainability targets, providing a steady volume base.
These elements created a virtuous cycle that delivered the strong deliveries report. While bears correctly flagged the loss of the U.S. tax credit as a risk, Tesla’s diversified playbook demonstrated that it could remain resilient against those headwinds. The Q2 beat suggests the company remains adept at navigating shifting market conditions, even as competition intensifies.
A Tesla Semi was involved in a fatal collision on U.S. Highway 50 in Dayton, Nevada, on Sunday, June 28, 2026, marking the first known fatal crash involving the electric Class 8 truck. The incident occurred around 7:20 a.m. at the intersection with Traditions Parkway, approximately 40 miles east of Reno and close to Tesla’s Gigafactory Nevada.
According to the Lyon County Sheriff’s Office and the Nevada State Police Highway Patrol, a semi-truck struck two passenger vehicles stopped at a traffic signal. The truck hit the vehicles from behind. Two people were pronounced dead at the scene, and a third person suffered life-threatening injuries and was flown to a hospital, Forbes reported.
Preliminary statements gathered at the scene by the Lyon County Sheriff’s Office suggested the truck driver may have fallen asleep at the wheel. However, the Nevada Highway Patrol, which is leading the investigation, stated that the official cause has not yet been determined.
Additional information is expected to be released early the following week. The truck was seized for evidence as part of the ongoing probe.
Responders at the scene included deputies from the Lyon County Sheriff’s Office, personnel from the Nevada Highway Patrol, Central Lyon County Fire Department, and the Nevada Department of Transportation. The crash led to the temporary closure of U.S. 50 in both directions.
The Tesla Semi is Tesla’s battery-electric heavy-duty truck, produced at the nearby Gigafactory in Nevada. Authorities initially described the vehicle as a semi-truck; its make was subsequently confirmed through reporting and scene identification; an interesting bit of information here, as the Semi is not yet available publicly and many do not know that Tesla builds electric trucks.
The investigation remains active, with no further official details on contributing factors or vehicle systems released as of early July 2026.
This incident highlights ongoing scrutiny of commercial vehicle safety on Nevada highways, particularly involving fatigue. Law enforcement continues to gather evidence and witness statements.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Tesla’s strong Q2 deliveries: Four key drivers behind the surprise
