Texas would be the proper venue for claims of corporate wrongdoing by
“I will not second-guess Tesla stockholders’ chosen forum by purporting to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of Texas law and procedure relative to our own. The owners of the corporation voted to require that derivative litigation be filed in a Texas forum. On the present facts, it is not inequitable to enforce their decision,” Vice Chancellor Bonnie W. David said in a 25-page opinion.
Her ruling disposes of three separate shareholder derivative suits consolidated before her.
Musk moved Tesla to Texas after the Chancery Court’s chief judge, Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick, twice rejected his CEO pay package. The Delaware Supreme Court restored that 2018 compensation deal in a December ruling.
The e-vehicle maker argued in October—while the cases were still before McCormick—that shareholder-approved by-laws requiring the application of Texas law to derivative lawsuits after its reincorporation should also apply to litigation that was pending in Delaware when the move occurred.
Facing allegations of bias from attorneys for Musk and Tesla, McCormick used Scrabble board game tiles drawn from a bag to reassign remaining litigation related to the car-maker and the world’s richest person. David’s ruling came without additional arguments or briefing in the combined multiple lawsuits over Musk’s alleged insider trading, his acquisition of then-Twitter Inc., and his focus on artificial intelligence.
The shareholders attacked Tesla’s Texas redomestication, “but they do not argue that Tesla’s stockholders were misled about the effect of the Texas Forum Bylaw in requiring derivative litigation to be brought in Texas rather than Delaware courts,” David said.
Tesla is represented by Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, DLA Piper LLP (US), and Richards, Layton & Finger PA. Musk is represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP. The other Tesla directors are represented by Freshfields US LLP and Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP.
The lead plaintiffs in the consolidated litigation, the Employees’ Retirement System of Rhode Island and the Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Pension Fund, are represented by Prickett, Jones & Elliott PA, Saxena White PA, Grant & Eisenhofer PA, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, and The Schall Law Firm.
Michael Perry, an investor who claims Musk engaged in insider trading in the sales of over $7 billion of Tesla shares, is represented by Squitieri & Fearon LLP, deLeeuw Law LLC, and Moore Law PLLC.
The cases are In re Tesla, Inc. Derivative Litig., Del. Ch., No. 2024-0631, opinion filed 4/13/26 and Perry v. Musk, Del. Ch., No. 2024-0560, opinion filed 4/13/26.
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:
See Breaking News in Context
Bloomberg Law provides trusted coverage of current events enhanced with legal analysis.
Already a subscriber?
Log in to keep reading or access research tools and resources.