Connect with us

Investor's Corner

Tesla shareholder’s legal team adjusts demand to $1.44 billion in fees for Musk pay case

Credit: Tesla China

Published

on

The legal team of Tesla shareholder Richard Tornetta, who filed a legal complaint against Elon Musk’s 2018 CEO Performance Award, has adjusted their plaintiff fee request to the Delaware Court. Tornetta’s legal team noted that they could adjust their proposed fee to just $73,948 per hour, which would amount to a cash award of roughly $1.44 billion.

The Tornetta vs. Musk case became a notable issue for the electric vehicle maker back in January when Judge Kathaleen McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery rescinded Musk’s 2018 CEO Performance Award. For their work in the case, Tornetta’s legal team argued that they should be granted 29.4 million TSLA shares. Such an amount would be worth over $5 billion, or more than $200,000 per hour. 

Tesla has argued against Tornetta’s legal team’s arguments. As noted in a Reuters report, the electric vehicle maker argued that the legal team of the Tesla shareholder — who held nine shares when he filed his complaint against Musk’s 2018 pay package — should be paid just about $13.6 million for their work. Longtime Tesla retail shareholder Amy Steffens has also secured legal counsel to challenge the $200,000 per hour fee request of Tornetta’s attorneys

In their recent filing, Tornetta’s legal team proposed an alternative way of looking at the fees for their work in the case. While the legal team rejected Tesla’s $13.6 million legal fee argument, and while the attorneys still argued that the court should strongly consider granting them over 29 million TSLA shares as payment, they noted that the Court could go for a cash-based alternative structure instead. Such a system would lower their hourly rate to $73,948, and would result in a payment of around $1.44 billion. 

Following are sections of the filing from Tornetta’s lawyers. 

Advertisement
-->

“While Plaintiff’s Counsel sincerely believe the award sought is appropriate, earned, and indeed conservative under Delaware law—the Action did, after all, rescind an ‘unfathomable’ $55B compensation package, the largest in history by multiples—Plaintiff’s Counsel acknowledge the requested award, if granted, would be record-setting and the subject of significant commentary. Were the Court concerned by the requested award’s size and desirous of a different approach, there are other alternatives available that address the expressed concerns about “windfalls.”

“Specifically, $35,000/hour cannot be a ‘windfall’ because that hourly rate was awarded by this Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court over a decade ago in Southern Peru. Adjusted to today’s dollars, a $35,000 hourly rate would be over $55,600/hour. It follows, a fortiori, that for a substantial verdict on the order of Southern Peru, an award of at least $55,600/hour is not a ‘windfall.’ 

“Indeed, even Tesla argues that this Action created compensable value equal to its calculation of the Grant’s $2.3B GDFV. But even using this low-end value estimate, the benefit Plaintiff achieved here was significantly higher than the $1.347B (pre-interest) Southern Peru benefit. Thus, a low-end cash award of roughly $1.0842B could be fashioned based solely on the affirmed, inflation-adjusted Southern Peru numbers.

“But any such award would be unfairly low for two reasons. First, as noted in Plaintiff’s Opening Brief, this Court in Southern Peru—after admonishing plaintiff’s counsel to seek a conservative fee given ‘the reality [that] their own delays affected the remedy awarded’—further reduced that request by one-third as a penalty for counsel taking so long to prosecute the case that rescission was impossible. Second, the ~$51B benefit achieved here is approximately 38x higher than the benefit achieved in Southern Peru

“Adjusting for the one-third penalty assessed in Southern Peru—which was applied to an already conservative 22.5% request by that plaintiff—brings the inflation-adjusted lodestar to $73,948/hour, which yields a fee of approximately $1.44B. Adjusting further to reflect the much higher result here is a matter of the Court’s discretion Plaintiff’s Counsel would submit that exercising the Court’s discretion to award a cash fee of roughly twice the inflation-adjusted Southern Peru hourly rate after reversing for the discount appropriately reflects the substantially greater benefit achieved here,” Tornetta’s lawyers wrote. 

Advertisement
-->

The fling from Tornetta’s lawyers can be viewed below (via Plainsite). 

gov.uscourts.delch.2018-0408-KSJM.387.0 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.

Simon is an experienced automotive reporter with a passion for electric cars and clean energy. Fascinated by the world envisioned by Elon Musk, he hopes to make it to Mars (at least as a tourist) someday. For stories or tips--or even to just say a simple hello--send a message to his email, simon@teslarati.com or his handle on X, @ResidentSponge.

Advertisement
Comments

Investor's Corner

Tesla price target boost from its biggest bear is 95% below its current level

Published

on

Credit: Tesla China

Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) just got a price target boost from its biggest bear, Gordon Johnson of GLJ Research, who raised his expected trading level to one that is 95 percent lower than its current trading level.

Johnson pushed his Tesla price target from $19.05 to $25.28 on Wednesday, while maintaining the ‘Sell’ rating that has been present on the stock for a long time. GLJ has largely been recognized as the biggest skeptic of Elon Musk’s company, being particularly critical of the automotive side of things.

Tesla has routinely been called out by Johnson for negative delivery growth, what he calls “weakening demand,” and price cuts that have occurred in past years, all pointing to them as desperate measures to sell its cars.

Johnson has also said that Tesla is extremely overvalued and is too reliant on regulatory credits for profitability. Other analysts on the bullish side recognize Tesla as a company that is bigger than just its automotive side.

Many believe it is a leader in autonomous driving, like Dan Ives of Wedbush, who believes Tesla will have a widely successful 2026, especially if it can come through on its targets and schedules for Robotaxi and Cybercab.

Justifying the price target this week, Johnson said that the revised valuation is based on “reality rather than narrative.” Tesla has been noted by other analysts and financial experts as a stock that trades on narrative, something Johnson obviously disagrees with.

Dan Nathan, a notorious skeptic of the stock, turned bullish late last year, recognizing the company’s shares trade on “technicals and sentiment.” He said, “From a trading perspective, it looks very interesting.”

Tesla bear turns bullish for two reasons as stock continues boost

Johnson has remained very consistent with this sentiment regarding Tesla and his beliefs regarding its true valuation, and has never shied away from putting his true thoughts out there.

Tesla shares closed at $431.40 today, about 95 percent above where Johnson’s new price target lies.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Tesla gets price target bump, citing growing lead in self-driving

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) stock received a price target update from Pierre Ferragu of Wall Street firm New Street Research, citing the company’s growing lead in self-driving and autonomy.

On Tuesday, Ferragu bumped his price target from $520 to $600, stating that the consensus from the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas was that Tesla’s lead in autonomy has been sustained, is growing, and sits at a multiple-year lead over its competitors.

CES 2026 validates Tesla’s FSD strategy, but there’s a big lag for rivals: analyst

“The signal from Vegas is loud and clear,” the analyst writes. “The industry isn’t catching up to Tesla; it is actively validating Tesla’s strategy…just with a 12-year lag.”

The note shows that the company’s prowess in vehicle autonomy is being solidified by lagging competitors that claim to have the best method. The only problem is that Tesla’s Vision-based approach, which it adopted back in 2022 with the Model 3 and Model Y initially, has been proven to be more effective than competitors’ approach, which utilizes other technology, such as LiDAR and sensors.

Currently, Tesla shares are sitting at around $433, as the company’s stock price closed at $432.96 on Tuesday afternoon.

Ferragu’s consensus on Tesla shares echoes that of other Wall Street analysts who are bullish on the company’s stock and position within the AI, autonomy, and robotics sector.

Dan Ives of Wedbush wrote in a note in mid-December that he anticipates Tesla having a massive 2026, and could reach a $3 trillion valuation this year, especially with the “AI chapter” taking hold of the narrative at the company.

Ives also said that the big step in the right direction for Tesla will be initiating production of the Cybercab, as well as expanding on the Robotaxi program through the next 12 months:

“…as full-scale volume production begins with the autonomous and robotics roadmap…The company has started to test the all-important Cybercab in Austin over the past few weeks, which is an incremental step towards launching in 2026 with important volume production of Cybercabs starting in April/May, which remains the golden goose in unlocking TSLA’s AI valuation.”

Tesla analyst breaks down delivery report: ‘A step in the right direction’

Tesla has transitioned from an automaker to a full-fledged AI company, and its Robotaxi and Cybercab programs, fueled by the Full Self-Driving suite, are leading the charge moving forward. In 2026, there are major goals the company has outlined. The first is removing Safety Drivers from vehicles in Austin, Texas, one of the areas where it operates a ride-hailing service within the U.S.

Ultimately, Tesla will aim to launch a Level 5 autonomy suite to the public in the coming years.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Tesla Q4 delivery numbers are better than they initially look: analyst

The Deepwater Asset Management Managing Partner shared his thoughts in a post on his website.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla Asia/X

Longtime Tesla analyst and Deepwater Asset Management Managing Partner Gene Munster has shared his insights on Tesla’s Q4 2025 deliveries. As per the analyst, Tesla’s numbers are actually better than they first appear. 

Munster shared his thoughts in a post on his website. 

Normalized December Deliveries

Munster noted that Tesla delivered 418k vehicles in the fourth quarter of 2025, slightly below Street expectations of 420k but above the whisper number of 415k. Tesla’s reported 16% year-over-year decline, compared to +7% in September, is largely distorted by the timing of the tax credit expiration, which pulled forward demand.

“Taking a step back, we believe September deliveries pulled forward approximately 55k units that would have otherwise occurred in December or March. For simplicity, we assume the entire pull-forward impacted the December quarter. Under this assumption, September growth would have been down ~5% absent the 55k pull-forward, a Deepwater estimate tied to the credit’s expiration.

For December deliveries to have declined ~5% year over year would imply total deliveries of roughly 470k. Subtracting the 55k units pulled into September results in an implied December delivery figure of approximately 415k. The reported 418k suggests that, when normalizing for the tax credit timing, quarter-over-quarter growth has been consistently down ~5%. Importantly, this ~5% decline represents an improvement from the ~13% declines seen in both the March and June 2025 quarters.

Advertisement
-->

Tesla’s United States market share

Munster also estimated that Q4 as a whole might very well show a notable improvement in Tesla’s market share in the United States. 

“Over the past couple of years, based on data from Cox Automotive, Tesla has been losing U.S. EV market share, declining to just under 50%. Based on data for October and November, Cox estimates that total U.S. EV sales were down approximately 35%, compared to Tesla’s just reported down 16% for the full quarter.  For the first two months of the quarter, Cox reported Tesla market share of roughly a 65% share, up from under 50% in the September quarter.

“While this data excludes December, the quarter as a whole is likely to show a material improvement in Tesla’s U.S. EV market share.

Continue Reading