Tesla, Elon Musk win dismissal of Model 3 lawsuit filed by shareholders

Tesla formally launched the Model 3 in July 2017, touting it as a vehicle for the masses, and attracted deposits from more than 500,000 potential customers

Elon Musk, Tesla
File photo of Tesla Motors Inc Chief Executive Elon Musk
Reuters
Last Updated : Aug 28 2018 | 8:16 AM IST

A federal judge in San Francisco dismissed a securities fraud lawsuit in which Tesla Inc shareholders accused the electric car company and Chief Executive Elon Musk of misleading them about the progress of production of its Model 3 vehicle.

In a decision made public on Monday, US District Judge Charles Breyer said that while shareholders claimed that Tesla fell short of its production goals, "federal securities laws do not punish companies for failing to achieve their targets."

Breyer said the shareholders have until Sept 28 to amend their complaint. Their lawyer, Laurence Rosen, did not respond to a request for comment.

The case is separate from lawsuits accusing Tesla and Musk of scheming to hurt short-sellers through Musk's Aug. 7 tweets about taking the Palo Alto, California-based company private, and that funding had been "secured."

Musk abandoned that proposal late Friday night.

Tesla formally launched the Model 3 in July 2017, touting it as a vehicle for the masses, and attracted deposits from more than 500,000 potential customers.

But shareholders said Musk knew Tesla was "woefully unprepared" to meet its production goal of 5,000 Model 3s per week, and that Tesla's share price was inflated until after the company finally cut its production target last November.

Belief in the Model 3 had helped propel Tesla's share price 62 per cent higher in the 1-1/2 years after the Palo Alto, California-based company unveiled it in March 2016.

But the judge said shareholders failed to show that Tesla needed to be clearer that Model 3 production could fall short.

The company eventually blamed its production shortfall on "bottlenecks" at its battery factory outside Reno, Nevada and its assembly plant in Fremont, California.

"Plaintiffs are correct that defendants' qualifications would not have been meaningful if defendants had known that it was impossible for Tesla to meet its stated production goals, not merely highly unlikely," Breyer wrote. "The facts plaintiffs have put forth do not tend to establish that this was the case."

Tesla did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Breyer's decision is dated Aug 24.

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Aug 28 2018 | 8:13 AM IST

Next Story