Connect with us
tesla-500k-delivery-estimate-q4-2022 tesla-500k-delivery-estimate-q4-2022

News

Tesla urges judge to lower attorney fees in director pay case

(Credit: Tesla)

Published

on

Tesla has encouraged a Delaware judge to deny almost $230 million in legal fees requested by attorneys following a case that was settled earlier this year regarding compensation for the company’s board of directors.

In a request to Delaware judge Kathaleen McCormick, Tesla has asked that the $229 million in legal fees requested by shareholder attorneys be lowered to $64 million, as Reuters reported on Friday. The automaker reached a settlement on the case in July, with Tesla’s directors agreeing to pay back over $735 million to the company related to stock option compensation from 2017 to 2020.

The attorneys have asked for 25 percent of the total $919 million settlement on the lawsuit, which was originally filed in 2020. Tesla’s attorneys have responded that shareholder legal teams inflated the settlement’s value and requested fees, connecting the value to its cost to each director rather than to the overall benefit of the company.

Tesla said the fee was an “unwarranted windfall,” recently noting that it would represent as much as $10,690 per hour for attorneys who worked on the case.

Advertisement

After hearing roughly two hours of arguments on Friday over the fee and attorney requests to approve the settlement, McCormick didn’t disclose when she planned to announce a ruling. McCormick must also approve the settlement, though it isn’t clear when she’ll do so.

The fees would be paid out directly to lawyers across four legal firms who have worked on the case, including partners and staff members at New York-based Bleichmar Fonti & Auld and Fields Kupka & Shukurov, which both billed over 10,000 hours working on the case. Other firms include McCarter & English attorneys in Wilmington, Delaware, and an additional attorney at Clark Hill in Lansing, Michigan, both of which said they billed hundreds of hours on the case.

At the hearing, Tesla shareholder Mike Levin noted that the directors were being held liable for damages as a group rather than the settlement allocating specific damages to each director.

“We don’t want one defendant — CEO Elon Musk — to pay any or all of it,” Levin said. “That would compromise any independence of the directors.”

Advertisement

The fee represents one of the highest fee requests ever made in the Delaware Court of Chancery, which frequently hosts shareholder lawsuits like this one. The directors have maintained that they received fair compensation, though they settled to avoid further litigation risk.

CEO Elon Musk also faces a separate challenge over his $56 pay package in 2018.

Elon Musk heads to trial for $56bn Tesla pay package

What are your thoughts? Let me know at zach@teslarati.com, find me on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send your tips to us at tips@teslarati.com.

Advertisement

Zach is a renewable energy reporter who has been covering electric vehicles since 2020. He grew up in Fremont, California, and he currently lives in Colorado. His work has appeared in the Chicago Tribune, KRON4 San Francisco, FOX31 Denver, InsideEVs, CleanTechnica, and many other publications. When he isn't covering Tesla or other EV companies, you can find him writing and performing music, drinking a good cup of coffee, or hanging out with his cats, Banks and Freddie. Reach out at zach@teslarati.com, find him on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send us tips at tips@teslarati.com.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot

Published

on

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.

Advertisement

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.”

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

Butler has now been formally charged with Manslaughter, a felony.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla’s strong Q2 deliveries: Four key drivers behind the surprise

Published

on

(Credit: Tesla)

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

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla Semi involved in first known fatal crash in Nevada

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement
Continue Reading