News
Tesla investors were “coerced” and “uninformed” during Musk pay ratification vote: lawyers
The legal team of Tesla investor Richard Tornetta, who held nine TSLA shares when he filed a complaint in Delaware against CEO Elon Musk’s 2018 CEO Performance Award, is not happy about Tesla’s efforts to urge the court to consider the ratification of Musk’s pay package. As per Tornetta’s lawyers, the ratification vote was coerced and uninformed — and thus invalid.
In a filing, Tornetta’s lawyers argued that the the Delaware Court should reject the efforts of Tesla’s legal team to consider the ratification of Musk’s compensation plan by the company’s shareholders at the 2024 Annual Stockholders’ Meeting. As could be seen in the filing, Tornetta’s lawyers immediately criticized Tesla for the EV maker’s attempts to revise the court’s initial opinion about the case.
“Ten leading law firms and an unlimited budget. And they still could not find it. A case, any case, holding stockholders can usurp the Supreme Court’s role and reverse this Court’s trial judgment. Quod erat demonstrandum. Delaware is not Athens. The stockholder franchise—however important—is not a ‘get out of [rescission] free’ card. Defendants’ proposal is a dangerous paradigm shift: Courts would be subject to vox populi, and stockholders could overturn trial judgments,” Tornetta’s lawyers wrote.
⚖️ T(h)ornetta
Hearing for the motion to revise the initial opinion now scheduled for August 2nd (rumors for 8/8 were wrong)
Plaintiff's attorney filed his opposition to this, his arguments are
– The court cannot reopen the closed trial record to consider new evidence
– The… pic.twitter.com/mz3wyAUy57— Ale?andra Merz (@TeslaBoomerMama) July 15, 2024
The plaintiff’s legal team also argued that despite the successful ratification of Elon Musk’s 2018 pay package at the 2024 Annual Stockholders’ Meeting, shareholders were still coerced and uninformed. The lawyers pointed to Musk’s comments that he would reconsider growing Tesla’s AI efforts if his share of the company was less than 25%, among other things, as a sign of shareholder coercion.
“As the Ratification vote approached, the press repeatedly reported that rejecting the Ratification would cause Musk to execute his threats to divert critical corporate opportunities from Tesla. These circumstances rendered the Ratification vote coercive—and thus invalid—by making it impossible for stockholders’ to exercise their franchise free of undue external pressure created by [Musk] that distract[ed] them from the merits of the decision under consideration,’ and ‘forc[ing] [stockholders] into a choice between a new position and a compromised position for reasons other than those related to the economic merits of the decision,’” Tornetta’s lawyers wrote.
They also argued that investors were uninformed since Tesla director Kathleen Wilson-Thompson, who served as the Special Committee of the company’s Board of Directors, was conflicted because a substantial portion of her net worth is tied to the EV maker. “Wilson-Thompson has realized a pre-tax total of approximately $62[M] from the exercise of [Tesla] equity award. Her Tesla shares received through grants were worth ~$150M upon her Committee appointment, which she admits ‘is a meaningful portion of her net worth’… Wilson-Thompson is conflicted just like Denholm,” Tornetta’s lawyers wrote.
A hearing for the motion to revise the Delaware Court’s initial opinion on the matter is scheduled on August 2, 2024. A number of Tesla shareholders who voted in the ratification of Musk’s pay package have noted that they intend to attend the hearing if it is public.
Rochard Tornetta’s lawyers’ filing (via PlainSite) can be viewed below.
gov.uscourts.delch.2018-0408-KSJM.405.0 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.
News
Tesla dispels reports of ‘sales suspension’ in California
“This was a “consumer protection” order about the use of the term “Autopilot” in a case where not one single customer came forward to say there’s a problem.
Sales in California will continue uninterrupted.”
Tesla has dispelled reports that it is facing a thirty-day sales suspension in California after the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) issued a penalty to the company after a judge ruled it “misled consumers about its driver-assistance technology.”
On Tuesday, Bloomberg reported that the California DMV was planning to adopt the penalty but decided to put it on ice for ninety days, giving Tesla an opportunity to “come into compliance.”
Tesla enters interesting situation with Full Self-Driving in California
Tesla responded to the report on Tuesday evening, after it came out, stating that this was a “consumer protection” order that was brought up over its use of the term “Autopilot.”
The company said “not one single customer came forward to say there’s a problem,” yet a judge and the DMV determined it was, so they want to apply the penalty if Tesla doesn’t oblige.
However, Tesla said that its sales operations in California “will continue uninterrupted.”
It confirmed this in an X post on Tuesday night:
This was a “consumer protection” order about the use of the term “Autopilot” in a case where not one single customer came forward to say there’s a problem.
Sales in California will continue uninterrupted.
— Tesla North America (@tesla_na) December 17, 2025
The report and the decision by the DMV and Judge involved sparked outrage from the Tesla community, who stated that it should do its best to get out of California.
One X post said California “didn’t deserve” what Tesla had done for it in terms of employment, engineering, and innovation.
Tesla has used Autopilot and Full Self-Driving for years, but it did add the term “(Supervised)” to the end of the FSD suite earlier this year, potentially aiming to protect itself from instances like this one.
This is the first primary dispute over the terminology of Full Self-Driving, but it has undergone some scrutiny at the federal level, as some government officials have claimed the suite has “deceptive” naming. Previous Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg was vocally critical of the use of the name “Full Self-Driving,” as well as “Autopilot.”
News
New EV tax credit rule could impact many EV buyers
We confirmed with a Tesla Sales Advisor that any current orders that have the $7,500 tax credit applied to them must be completed by December 31, meaning delivery must take place by that date. However, it is unclear at this point whether someone could still claim the credit when filing their tax returns for 2025 as long as the order reflects an order date before September 30.
Tesla owners could be impacted by a new EV tax credit rule, which seems to be a new hoop to jump through for those who benefited from the “extension,” which allowed orderers to take delivery after the loss of the $7,500 discount.
After the Trump Administration initiated the phase-out of the $7,500 EV tax credit, many were happy to see the rules had been changed slightly, as deliveries could occur after the September 30 cutoff as long as orders were placed before the end of that month.
However, there appears to be a new threshold that EV buyers will have to go through, and it will impact their ability to get the credit, at least at the Point of Sale, for now.
Delivery must be completed by the end of the year, and buyers must take possession of the car by December 31, 2025, or they will lose the tax credit. The U.S. government will be closing the tax credit portal, which allows people to claim the credit at the Point of Sale.
🚨UPDATE: $7,500 Tax Credit Portal “Closes By End of Year”.
This is bad news for pending Tesla buyers (MYP) looking to lock in the $7,500 Tax Credit.
“it looks like the portal closes by end of the year so there be no way for us to guarantee the funds however, we will try our… pic.twitter.com/LnWiaXL30k
— DennisCW | wen my L (@DennisCW_) December 15, 2025
We confirmed with a Tesla Sales Advisor that any current orders that have the $7,500 tax credit applied to them must be completed by December 31, meaning delivery must take place by that date.
However, it is unclear at this point whether someone could still claim the credit when filing their tax returns for 2025 as long as the order reflects an order date before September 30.
If not, the order can still go through, but the buyer will not be able to claim the tax credit, meaning they will pay full price for the vehicle.
This puts some buyers in a strange limbo, especially if they placed an order for the Model Y Performance. Some deliveries have already taken place, and some are scheduled before the end of the month, but many others are not expecting deliveries until January.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk takes latest barb at Bill Gates over Tesla short position
Bill Gates placed a massive short bet against Tesla of ~1% of our total shares, which might have cost him over $10B by now
Elon Musk took his latest barb at former Microsoft CEO Bill Gates over his short position against the company, which the two have had some tensions over for a number of years.
Gates admitted to Musk several years ago through a text message that he still held a short position against his sustainable car and energy company. Ironically, Gates had contacted Musk to explore philanthropic opportunities.
Elon Musk explains Bill Gates beef: He ‘placed a massive bet on Tesla dying’
Musk said he could not take the request seriously, especially as Gates was hoping to make money on the downfall of the one company taking EVs seriously.
The Tesla frontman has continued to take shots at Gates over the years from time to time, but the latest comment came as Musk’s net worth swelled to over $600 billion. He became the first person ever to reach that threshold earlier this week, when Tesla shares increased due to Robotaxi testing without any occupants.
Musk refreshed everyone’s memory with the recent post, stating that if Gates still has his short position against Tesla, he would have lost over $10 billion by now:
Bill Gates placed a massive short bet against Tesla of ~1% of our total shares, which might have cost him over $10B by now
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 17, 2025
Just a month ago, in mid-November, Musk issued his final warning to Gates over the short position, speculating whether the former Microsoft frontman had still held the bet against Tesla.
“If Gates hasn’t fully closed out the crazy short position he has held against Tesla for ~8 years, he had better do so soon,” Musk said. This came in response to The Gates Foundation dumping 65 percent of its Microsoft position.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk sends final warning to Bill Gates over short position
Musk’s involvement in the U.S. government also drew criticism from Gates, as he said that the reductions proposed by DOGE against U.S.A.I.D. were “stunning” and could cause “millions of additional deaths of kids.”
“Gates is a huge liar,” Musk responded.
It is not known whether Gates still holds his Tesla short position.
Tesla dispels reports of ‘sales suspension’ in California
New EV tax credit rule could impact many EV buyers
