JPMorgan Sues Elon Musk's Tesla in $162 Million Warrant Dispute
JPMorgan Chase & Co. claims a series of stock warrant transactions were affected by Elon Musk's short-lived attempt to take Tesla private three years ago.
November 16, 2021 at 01:55 PM
3 minute read
Cases and CourtsJPMorgan Chase & Co. sued Tesla Inc. seeking a $162 million payment related to a series of stock warrant transactions that were affected by Elon Musk's short-lived attempt to take the carmaker private three years ago.
The biggest U.S. bank bought the warrants from Tesla in 2014 to help the automaker mitigate risk that its stock would be diluted by issuance of convertible notes, and to make certain federal income tax deductions, according to a complaint filed Monday in Manhattan federal court. When the warrants expired, Tesla would owe JPMorgan a payment of shares or cash if its stock traded above a certain strike price.
JPMorgan claims it had the discretion to adjust the strike price based on several factors, including the volatility of Tesla's stock. The bank made two modifications in August 2018: one after Musk tweeted that he had secured funding to take Tesla private, and another when the chief executive officer abandoned the effort weeks later.
Now that the warrants have expired, JPMorgan claims Tesla has shorted the bank what it's due.
"Even though JPMorgan's adjustments were appropriate and contractually required, Tesla has refused to settle at the contractual strike price and pay in full what it owes to JPMorgan," the bank said in the complaint.
Tesla wrote JPMorgan in February 2019 to argue the adjustments the bank made six months earlier were "unreasonably swift and represented an opportunistic attempt to take advantage of changes in volatility in Tesla's stock," according to the complaint.
But JPMorgan claims Tesla didn't make specific challenges to its calculations or back up its assertion, and hasn't objected further in the last two years. Tesla didn't respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit.
The dispute dredges up one of Musk's most controversial episodes. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission sued the CEO and Tesla in September 2018, alleging that Musk had committed securities fraud and the company lacked adequate controls of his social media activity.
Musk and Tesla each agreed to pay $20 million in a settlement without admitting wrongdoing. The CEO was forced to give up the role of board chairman for three years, and Tesla agreed to have a lawyer pre-approve material information Musk wants to communicate to investors.
The controls haven't stopped Musk from stirring up controversy on Twitter. Early this month, he polled users on whether he should sell 10% of his Tesla stake. He's offloaded about $7.8 billion of the company's shares since then, precipitating a stock sell-off.
The case is JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Tesla, 21-cv-09441, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
Joe Schneider and Robert Burnson report for Bloomberg News.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250