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
© 2025 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 AllPlaintiffs Attorneys Awarded $113K on $1 Judgment in Noise Ordinance Dispute
4 minute readUS Judge Cannon Blocks DOJ From Releasing Final Report in Trump Documents Probe
3 minute readRead the Document: DOJ Releases Ex-Special Counsel's Report Explaining Trump Prosecutions
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Court Holds Accident with Post Driver Was 'Bizarre Occurrence,' Dismisses Action Brought Under Labor Law §240
- 2Judge Recommends Disbarment for Attorney Who Plotted to Hack Judge's Email, Phone
- 3Two Wilkinson Stekloff Associates Among Victims of DC Plane Crash
- 4Two More Victims Alleged in New Sean Combs Sex Trafficking Indictment
- 5Jackson Lewis Leaders Discuss Firm's Innovation Efforts, From Prompt-a-Thons to Gen AI Pilots
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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