Musk, Tesla Board Sued in Del. Chancery Court Over CEO's 'Erratic Behavior'
A Tesla shareholder has sued Elon Musk in the Delaware Court of Chancery over his recent pattern of "erratic behavior" and accused the company's directors of "gross mismanagement" for failing to monitor the outspoken CEO's statements on Twitter.
October 18, 2018 at 03:02 PM
4 minute read
A Tesla shareholder has sued Elon Musk in the Delaware Court of Chancery over his recent pattern of “erratic behavior” and accused the company's directors of “gross mismanagement” for failing to monitor the outspoken CEO's statements on Twitter.
The derivative suit, filed Wednesday, is the first in Delaware to target Musk and the company's board after Musk in August tweeted to his 22 million followers that he had “funding secured” to take the Palo Alto, California-based carmaker private at $420 per share. Musk and Tesla have since settled a lawsuit from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission stemming from the tweet, after press reports revealed that Musk did not in fact have funding in place to support the deal.
However, the complaint also cited a string of public missteps from Musk, and it seeks to hold the company's board liable for the proclamations that he makes on social media.
“Despite being put on notice of Musk's propensity for erratic public communications that have harmed the company and its stockholders, the board consciously disregarded his actions and failed to do anything,” attorneys from Faruqi & Faruqi and the Grabar Law Office alleged in the 55-page filing. “The board put their loyalties to Musk ahead of their fiduciary duties to the company and its shareholders.”
Plaintiff Zachary Elton pointed to a series of “outrageous and false” public statements from Musk in the past year, including tweets in which he accused a British diver working to rescue a trapped youth soccer team of pedophilia and joked that Tesla was bankrupt. The tweets, Elton said, damaged Tesla's credibility and corporate image, as it has scrambled to manage the fallout.
The suit seeks to recover “significant sums of money” that Tesla has spent responding to the controversies, and it asks for an order forcing a shareholder vote to appoint a board-level committee and executive officer to oversee Musk.
The filing comes just weeks after Musk settled the SEC action, which accused Musk of misleading investors and causing a huge spike in Tesla's stock price with his go-private tweet on Aug. 7. Under the settlement, Musk and Tesla agreed to pay a combined $40 million in penalties and committed to corporate governance and other reforms. Musk, who did not admit guilt, was barred from serving as Tesla's chairman for a period of three years.
Tesla is currently facing nine securities class actions in California federal court over the tweet and its effect on the company's stock.
But Musk's problems have extended beyond the realm of social media. Elton's complaint also cited Musk's recent appearance on talk show host Joe Rogan's podcast, where the executive appeared to smoke marijuana, and it noted comments Musk made to The New York Times about taking Ambien to deal with the stress of running Tesla.
Meanwhile, the complaint said, Tesla's board members had breached their duties of due care, loyalty and oversight by failing to implement a system to ensure that Musk's statements comply with state and federal regulations. Elton, who did not make a presuit demand that the directors pursue their own litigation against Musk, said the board lacked independence from Musk, due to a web of business and personal relationships.
The case, captioned Elton v. Musk, has not yet been assigned to a judge.
Elton is represented by Michael Van Gorder of Faruqi & Faruqi's Wilmington office and Stuart J. Guber and Alex B. Heller from the firm's Philadelphia office. Joshua H. Grabar of the Grabar Law Office in Philadelphia is also listed as counsel for the plaintiffs.
An online docket-tracking service on Thursday did not list attorneys for Musk and the rest of Tesla's directors.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
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 AllLatham, Finnegan Win $115M Muscular Dystrophy Drug Patent Verdict for Counterclaimant
2 minute readDelaware Supreme Court Adopts Broad Interpretation of Case Law on Anticompetition Provisions
3 minute read3rd Circuit Nominee Mangi Sees 'No Pathway to Confirmation,' Derides 'Organized Smear Campaign'
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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