Investor's Corner
Tesla shareholders are taking a stand against law firm’s $6B TSLA stock request
Is the law firm behind the legal complaint that ultimately rescinded Elon Musk’s 2018 pay package looking to get overpaid? A growing number of Tesla shareholders say so. This is highlighted in a grassroots effort from Tesla stockholders who are currently using their voices to ask Delaware Judge Kathaleen McCormick to deny the request of law firm Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, which is demanding a compensation of nearly $6 billion for their services in the case against Musk.
Elon Musk’s 2018 pay package was rescinded by Judge McCormick in late January. The case was filed by a thrash metal drummer and car enthusiast, Richard Tornetta, who held nine TSLA shares when the legal complaint was filed. In a brief, the lawyers noted that they should be compensated in the form of 29 million TSLA shares. The block of TSLA stock would be worth nearly $6 billion, which would translate to an hourly rate of about $288,888.
#DelawareCourt81
letter sent in support of giving the plaintiff's attorneys the reward they deserve: 9 shares. pic.twitter.com/cGWHx5Xxym— James Moore (@russellisright) March 5, 2024
“Plaintiff’s Counsel instead seeks a fee award in kind—a percentage of the shares returned for unrestricted use by Tesla (rather than cash). In other words, we are prepared to ‘eat our cooking.’ This structure has the benefit of linking the award directly to the benefit created and avoids taking even one cent from the Tesla balance sheet to pay fees. It is also tax-deductible by Tesla,” the lawyers wrote in a brief.
#DelawareCourt81
Fullfilled my duty from EUROPE as well ? pic.twitter.com/0fATjfdnvF— SeefyCar (@SeefyCar) March 6, 2024
Elon Musk has responded to the Delaware court’s decision on X, stating that the idea of paying the lawyers behind the case nearly $6 billion in TSLA stock was “criminal.” Musk’s sentiments are understandable, especially since the vast majority of TSLA shareholders did approve his 2018 compensation plan. A number of these shareholders have now decided to make their voices known by sending letters to Judge McCormick explaining that they do not just support Musk’s 2018 pay package — they are also against the idea of paying Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann nearly $6 billion in TSLA stock.
??#DelawareCourt81 pic.twitter.com/yy8WqewatA— Ale?andra Merz (@TeslaBoomerMama) March 6, 2024
The TSLA shareholders have selected the hashtag #DelawareCourt81 for their movement. A look at the hashtag on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, shows that retail shareholders from all walks of life are now sending letters to Judge McCormick. Some have even sent letters from abroad. Others shared personal stories about how their retirement is tied to TSLA stock, and how a $6 billion TSLA share grant to Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann would cause them great financial harm.
Ready to ? in the morning. This letter to the Delaware judge highlights these 4 points:#DelawareCourt81
1️⃣ The excessive $6 BILLION in attorney fees lacks transparency and does not benefit shareholders.
2️⃣ The invalidation of Elon Musk’s 2018 pay package is not based on a… pic.twitter.com/3I5Xeq7bDc— Gail Alfar (@GailAlfarATX) March 5, 2024
It remains to be seen if the Tesla shareholders’ efforts would affect Judge McCormick’s final rulings on the matter. But regardless of the Delaware Judge’s decision, the efforts undertaken by the Tesla shareholders deserve a notable amount of praise. Elon Musk seems to appreciate the shareholders’ efforts, at least, as the CEO expressed his thanks in a reply to a shareholder’s post about the initiative.
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann’s brief about its request for compensation can be viewed below.
March 1, 2024 – Fee Brief as Filed_Tesla 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.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk breaks his silence on the Starlink impact to Ukraine drones
Musk says the US military and president set Starshield limits, not SpaceX, amid Ukraine complaints.
Elon Musk says the speed limit cutting out Ukraine’s military Starlink terminals is not SpaceX’s decision. In a post on X Wednesday, Musk wrote that “Starshield systems are owned and controlled by the US government. Any limits on speed or usage are decided by the US military and ultimately POTUS.” He added that Starlink is a commercial service limited to civilian or defensive activities and “cannot be used for offensive military action, as doing so would be inappropriate for a commercial company.”
He was replying to Mykhailo Fedorov, Ukraine’s former defense minister, who had thanked Musk for restoring connectivity at speeds up to 160 km/h and said removing the Starshield limit entirely is “now critical for Ukraine’s defense.”
Starshield systems are owned and controlled by the US government. Any limits on speed or usage are decided by the US military and ultimately POTUS.
Starlink is a commercial service owned and controlled by SpaceX. Usage of Starlink is limited to civilian or defensive activities and cannot be used for offensive military action, as doing so would be inappropriate for a commercial company.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 14, 2026
The complaint started Tuesday night, when Ukrainian officials said military terminals began losing service above roughly 100 mph. Presidential adviser Serhiy Beskrestnov said the defense forces got no warning and several missions were disrupted, as Teslarati reported earlier Wednesday. The 7th Rapid Reaction Corps told Reuters connections dropped for 10 to 20 seconds at speeds well below the limit, which made drones harder to control. Poland’s foreign minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, asked Musk on X whether he is “playing politics with your products again.”
That is why the Starlink and Starshield distinction matters. SpaceX introduced Starshield in 2022 as the government version of Starlink, with an initial focus on Earth observation, communications and hosted payloads. It won a Space Force contract in 2023 with a $70 million ceiling. In December 2024, the Pentagon moved Ukraine’s terminals onto Starshield, covering about 3,000 units across two contracts. Ukraine’s military connections therefore run through a service that Musk now says sits under Washington’s control.
While Musk’s post describes who holds authority, it does not infer that anyone ordered the limit, and neither SpaceX nor the US government has confirmed who set it. Ukrainian officials have pointed to the timing, which follows President Trump’s push for an energy ceasefire and Musk’s Saturday post that “Zelensky has gone too far.” The BBC noted Trump denied threatening to restrict intelligence sharing with Kyiv, and no evidence has been presented that Washington requested the cap.
The episode also revives a promise from 2025. After Poland accused him of threatening Ukraine’s access, Musk said Starlink “will never turn off its terminals” and would not be used as a bargaining chip. Poland has since supplied more than 29,000 terminals to Ukraine. Teslarati also covered Kyiv’s search for Starlink alternatives in 2025, and the latest dispute gives that search new urgency.
Investor's Corner
Tesla opens the Q&A for its biggest earnings call yet
Tesla opens its Q3 earnings Q&A, and Cybercab, Robotaxi, Optimus and regulators loom over October 21.
Tesla has opened its shareholder question portal for the Q3 2026 earnings call, with the Say Q&A page already listing questions. Investors have until 4:00 p.m. EDT on October 20 to submit and vote on what management should answer.
The call is set for Wednesday, October 21. Tesla will post results after the market closes, with a live webcast at 4:30 p.m. CT, or 5:30 p.m. ET, through its investor relations site.
Say ranks questions by the number of shares behind the votes, which gives institutional holders extra weight over the retail crowd.
Ahead of Q2, retail investors asked why Robotaxi growth had stalled, when Cybercab would start customer rides, and where the Optimus Gen 3 ramp stood, while an institutional holder asked how Tesla and SpaceX would split Terafab duties. Cybercab has since answered one of those. Tesla said last week it has 300 plus Cybercabs serving Austin, up eightfold in 30 days, with Dallas named as the next city. The questions now are likely to move from when to how fast.
There is also a regulatory question hanging over the call. NHTSA has demanded sworn answers on how the pedal free Cybercab was certified against federal safety standards, with responses due October 30, nine days after the call. Whether an analyst raises it live is unknown, but it is the kind of exposure that tends to find its way into a Q&A.
The numbers will not be the main draw. Tesla already reported 486,532 deliveries and 13.7 GWh of storage for the quarter. Consensus sits around 43 to 45 cents per share on roughly $27.8 billion in revenue, according to Zacks, after a Q2 report that missed on EPS. Goldman Sachs, which holds a Neutral rating and a $360 target, argues the outlook for Robotaxi, FSD and Optimus will matter more to the stock than the quarter itself.
The call also lands six days after the rescheduled Roadster event, which Tesla will stream on X on Thursday, October 15, at 7:55 p.m. CT. If the Roadster shows up with a production date or a SpaceX thruster package, expect it to climb the voting list before the deadline.
Elon Musk
FAA kicks off review of SpaceX’s bid to fly Starship nearly every day
FAA is reviewing SpaceX’s plan for 456 Starship launches a year, up from 25 today.
The FAA said Tuesday that it will prepare an environmental impact statement on SpaceX’s proposal to run as many as 456 Starship launches and 912 landings a year from Starbase, Texas. SpaceX is currently authorized for 25 launches and 50 landings annually, which makes the request roughly 18 times the existing ceiling. The notice of intent is set to publish in the Federal Register on Wednesday.
The plan comes in two phases. Phase 1 would allow up to 100 launches and 200 landings a year, on any day and at any hour. Phase 2, which the FAA says could arrive within several years, would raise the limit to the full 456 launches, still at any hour but only on weekdays. The agency noted that 912 landings is the upper limit for the Texas facility no matter where a given mission begins, and that Starship and Super Heavy could come down at the launch site or in the Gulf and open ocean.
A draft statement will be released for public comment at a later date, and the FAA has not said when. According to the Federal Registar, written comments are due November 30 on regulations.gov under docket FAA-2026-12808, with in person scoping meetings on November 17 in Brownsville and November 19 in Port Isabel, plus a virtual session on November 18. The review will weigh air quality, wildlife, coastal resources, water, noise, and aviation, and the FAA said any increase beyond this proposal would need its own separate review.
The numbers look large next to what Starbase has actually done. Starship has flown three times from Texas this year, including Flight 14 on September 28, the first orbital flight, which deployed 26 Starlink V3 satellites. Bloomberg reported that Starbase has never launched more than five times in a calendar year. The current cap of 25 comes from an FAA approval in May 2025. In February, the agency also approved up to 44 Starship launches a year from Launch Complex 39A in Florida, so Phase 1 in Texas alone would more than double that allowance.
Musk has said Starship could eventually fly more than once per hour within less than a decade, per Bloomberg. The nearer term target is Flight 15. Musk said on October 10 that it is hopefully four to six weeks away and will try to catch the ship with the tower, as Teslarati covered. That flight still runs under the existing 25 launch limit, and so would every Starbase launch for as long as the new review takes.
As of mid morning Pacific time on Tuesday, SpaceX had not posted about the filing on its own account.