The test began in July 2021 and within the first few days, Musk had remarked that it was a stock-to-share transaction that resulted in “no financial gain”. Shareholders demanded that Musk repay the $ 2.6 billion acquisition of SolarCity after he claimed he had put a lot of pressure on Tesla’s board to buy the company. Tesla shares fell more than 10 percent after the announcement of the acquisition of SolarCity, which made investors skeptical about the benefits of the deal. Plaintiffs allege that Musk persuaded Tesla’s board to acquire the company by falsifying SolarCity’s financial position. Musk claimed the company could be positive in cash flows within six months, but shareholders argued that no economist agreed with that claim. Musk also said in the early days of the case that the acquisition of SolarCity was crucial to the “Master Plan, Part Deux”, a sequel to the CEO’s “top secret” book on the world’s transition to sustainable energy. In addition, it stated that it did not control the appointment or remuneration of SolarCity’s board members at the time of the acquisition and did not influence the terms of the agreement. The judge in the case said (via CNBC), “Elon was more involved in the proceedings than he should have been as a dissident. Clashes between other members of Tesla’s board were not completely resolved. With those words, Tesla’s Board of Directors effectively considered the Acquisition and Elon did not stand in the way. “ If Musk lost the case, he would have to pay more than $ 2 billion, one of the largest court rulings ever against a man. CNBC says the decision is likely to be appealed. I would love to hear your news! If you have any comments, concerns or questions, please email me at [email protected]. You can also contact me on Twitter @KlenderJoey or if you have tips for news, you can email us at [email protected] Tesla’s $ 2.6 billion acquisition of SolarCity ruled in favor of Elon Musk
