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.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
