Yes, I do. I am just very unfamiliar with these kind of litigative actions. Must be an American thing. This won’t happen in other parts of the world.
I didn't think it could happen in the US either, but it sadly did. I still can't believe it.
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes, I do. I am just very unfamiliar with these kind of litigative actions. Must be an American thing. This won’t happen in other parts of the world.
It wasn't anything like that -- those numbers are nonsense. My December, 2017 build Model 3 was VIN #...2300, early enough to get the original Alcantara headliner. Still going strong.I am not sure the Model 3 ramp was that fast. I got mine in March 2018 and I was VIN 7700
I didn't think it could happen in the US either, but it sadly did. I still can't believe it.
Those lawyers took it upon themselves to sue on behalf of all shareholders, that we paid Elon too much (I guess because the judge thought we didn’t know Elon and the board liked each other).That was my first reaction. Asking 10% of what they saved for the litigant. Which is the quy with 9 or 10 shares. So how much would that be 2 or 3 cents?
It is still difficult to comprehend.
This is the most important question....What are the odds they will get billions?
If the decision fall to her, she will award MORE than what they are asking for. I'll be shocked if I'm wrong, and I will be certain someone talked to her in a back room conversation for the purpose you suggest. I see that as a very low probability though.It would be interesting if the judge, in a last ditch effort to redeem some smidgen of Delaware's "business friendly" reputation, and avoid losing corporate clients in droves, decides on a much lower cash award for the litigation team's expenses.
This is the most important question....
How this works in most legal systems is that the court orders the losing party to pay costs for the successful party, but I don't think this has to be 100% of costs.
Costs should have to be justified invoices for external costs, and the legal team's hourly rate for the remainder.
In any reasonable legal system, with a fair judge, costs need to be reasonable and justified.
I am aware that in the US lawyers make outrageous claims for costs, but this claim is a big step beyond that.
Although the fee is huge, it’s in line with precedents reflecting Delaware’s policy of rewarding entrepreneurial attorneys for keeping major corporations honest by taking risks on complex cases and litigating them until they have enough leverage to get “real results,” the judge said.
Such lawyers “perform a valuable service by pursuing litigation in a world where stockholders are rationally apathetic,” he wrote. “Plaintiff’s counsel brought a real case, invested over $4 million of real money, and obtained a real and unprecedented result.”
This is the most important question....
How this works in most legal systems is that the court orders the losing party to pay costs for the successful party, but I don't think this has to be 100% of costs.
Costs should have to be justified invoices for external costs, and the legal team's hourly rate for the remainder.
In any reasonable legal system, with a fair judge, costs need to be reasonable and justified.
I am aware that in the US lawyers make outrageous claims for costs, but this claim is a big step beyond that.
Should the judge award the claimed amount ,IMO there will be a stampede out of Delaware ASAP, the decision would clearly be hostile to business, and the interests of shareholders.
IMO it will be extremely disappointing if the lawyers get more than around 3% of the claimed amount.,
I'm obviously not a lawyer but it seems that the Yazoo land grab scandal adjudication might apply to Elon's contract. If I have it right, the Georgia legislature corruptly granted a large amount of land to some companies and when the bribes came to light, they tried to reverse the sale. The Supreme Court upheld the original sale even though it was well documented to be corrupt. So what does it matter that the board liked Elon. A deal is a deal. Could this precedent be applied?
In "most legal systems" the cause we see headlines about is most often heard under criminal law or the laws governing a civil suit.
I think that contract law is a further defined part of a civil action where the contract is the sole definition of the law for the case.
Could an amicus brief have been submitted to the case, or is there something special about it that would prevent that? If so, why didn't we collectively get on board with one?
Similarly, can we do so with the inevitable appeal? Sign me up!
If Tesla starts implementing their charging network in the continent below, after it becomes the norm people might say it SACS...Brazil is CCS2, part of why it sucks a bit to import US Teslas here, there is adapters, but still
If/when Tesla comes here with NACS would be a bit of a pain for a short time until Superchagers are dominant and sufficient to the point you can ignore other networks
If it's used in both South America and North America it could be time for SNACSIf Tesla starts implementing their charging network in the continent below, after it becomes the norm people might say it SACS...
Sorry, couldn't resist...
If Tesla starts implementing their charging network in the continent below, after it becomes the norm people might say it SACS...
Sorry, couldn't resist...
So, why did these lawyers sue Tesla and Elon again?Those lawyers took it upon themselves to sue on behalf of all shareholders, that we paid Elon too much (I guess because the judge thought we didn’t know Elon and the board liked each other).
For their fee, they are asking for 11% of the shares we would have otherwise had to give Elon, had the package stood.
“Financially” the shareholders come out ahead, because we have to now give away far fewer shares, so we have less dilution. Of course the net result is Elon getting totally screwed, and that could have far larger ramifications than the dilution we save. So overall, I believe it is very bad for shareholders and why so many of us are upset.
What sucks is that they only needed to find a single shareholder in order to sue “on behalf” of all of us.
And of course one of the judge’s points was that the negotiation was not adversarial enough. That’s incredibly wrong. Some great negotiations occur when both sides like each other and are very giving. E.g. “I’ll pick up the check.” ‘No, Let me get it”
And of course we shareholders made out incredibly well from that negotiation.