“The superiority of the evidence reveals that Tesla paid a fair price – SolarCity was worth at least what Tesla paid for it, and the acquisition was otherwise extremely profitable for Tesla,” said Vice Chancellor Joseph. Slits of the Delaware Court. of the Chancellery. The decision can be appealed and a shareholder lawyer said he was evaluating possible next steps. “The case is about faith. The court ruling recognizes that Elon Musk had a conflict and that there were flaws in the process,” said Randall Barron, the plaintiffs’ lawyer. There was no immediate response from Tesla or Musk. Slaich said Musk was more involved than he should have been, but a fair price for SolarCity offset the allegations that the deal unjustly enriched Musk. The decision follows a 10-day trial in July, which included almost two full days of testimony from Musk. Pension funds and union asset managers have claimed that Musk ordered Tesla’s negotiations on SolarCity, while publicly claiming that it was “completely excluded”. Slaich said Musk had on several occasions been involved in board discussions about the deal, but also noted several cases where the board had stood up to Musk and refused to follow his wishes, such as the timetable for the deal. The total deal was valued at $ 2.6 billion in 2016. Tesla’s share price soared, boosting the value of Musk’s acquisition of the SolarCity market and subsequent claims by the plaintiffs. Musk, the richest man in the world with a fortune of about $ 265.6 billion according to Forbes, then owned about 22% of both companies.
