Connect with us

Published

on

Elon Musk speaks at SolarCity’s Inside Energy Summit in New York.
Rashid Umar Abbasi | Reuters

Tesla CEO Elon Musk is expected in court on Monday, and the stakes are high — if he loses he could have to pay upwards of $2 billion from his considerable personal wealth.

Musk will be the first witness in a trial to defend his role in Tesla’s $2.6 billion acquisition of SolarCity. Shareholders have sued Musk and members of the Tesla board, alleging that the 2016 deal amounted to a SolarCity bailout.

They also allege that it unfairly enriched the Musk family, who were among the largest shareholders, and that Musk and others failed to disclose all pertinent details and breached their fiduciary responsibilities. Musk has insisted he was “fully recused” from negotiations over the deal. 

Last year, the board members named in the suit settled with the Tesla shareholders for $60 million with no admission of wrongdoing. Musk, the second-richest person in the world, was the only defendant who chose to take the fight to court.

There’s no jury to persuade in this matter. His fate will be determined by the Delaware Chancery Court’s judge, Vice-Chancellor Joseph Slights III.

Days in court

Musk has had his share of legal problems beyond SolarCity.

For example, the SEC sued him in 2018 for fraud, with Musk and Tesla settling, paying $20 million each. The charges came after Musk tweeted about taking Tesla private for $420 a share, a move that sent Tesla’s stock price soaring. Musk had to temporarily relinquish his chairman role at Tesla as one of the terms of the settlement.

In a separate case, he emerged victorious after caving expert Vernon Unsworth said Musk had defamed him when the Tesla CEO called him a “pedo guy” on twitter. His attorneys argued that “pedo guy” was heated rhetoric and not meant as statement of fact.

Tesla and Musk are facing many other lawsuits, including one over Musk’s unprecedented CEO compensation package, and a number of federal probes according to the company’s own financial filings.

In the SolarCity case, the judge will have to decide whether Musk was a conflicted controlling shareholder who met the “entire fairness” standard in his handling of the SolarCity acquisition.

In other words, was Musk acting in Tesla shareholders’ best interest? And did Musk tell shareholders everything they deserved to know?

Known as a shareholder derivative action, this kind of lawsuit is filed by investors on behalf of a corporation, rather than the individuals or funds themselves. If the plaintiffs win, proceeds may go to Tesla and not to the stakeholders who brought the suit.

Company connections

According to a filing with the chancery court, Musk owned 22.1% of Tesla common stock at the time of the deal, and 21.9% of SolarCity. SolarCity was a troubled asset that was bleeding cash in the capital-intensive market of residential solar deployment.

Vehicles sit parked outside the Tesla Inc. solar panel factory in Buffalo, New York, U.S., on Wednesday, Dec. 26, 2018.
Andrew Harrer | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Musk’s attorneys are expected to argue that the SolarCity deal hasn’t harmed shareholders at all and that they voted overwhelmingly to approve the acquisition. After all, Tesla shares have skyrocketed from a closing price of $43.92 on June 21, 2016 — when Tesla announced it would bid for SolarCity — to a closing price of $656.95 on July 9, 2021 (Friday) after a five-for-one stock split last year.

The company is also part of the S&P 500 now, and reports profits regularly.

SolarCity was founded and run by Musk’s cousins, Lyndon and Peter Rive, but backed by Musk who served as chairman of the board. Meanwhile, he also was CEO of Tesla, as well as the company’s chairman.

That wasn’t his only potential conflict. SpaceX, Musk’s aerospace venture, had invested $255 million in SolarCity bonds from March 2015 to March 2016. Four members of Tesla’s board directly or indirectly owned SolarCity stock at the time the acquisition was under consideration. And some Tesla board members also held shares in SpaceX and were on its board.

How he pitched it

To Musk and many of his supporters, the acquisition of SolarCity in 2016 represented a natural combination of his companies and a way for Tesla to pursue its environmental mission with a broader array of products. Homeowners would be able to finance and install solar rooftop panels from the same company that provided their electric vehicle, home charging station and backup battery for energy storage.

Tesla had already launched an energy division in late 2015, with a home battery dubbed the Powerwall and other big batteries for use by businesses and utilities.

By June 2016, Musk said Tesla would bid $2.8 billion to buy SolarCity. “I don’t think this creates additional financial risk for Tesla,” he said at that time, and called a merger “blindingly obvious.” But Tesla investors were skeptical, with the stock price plunging more than 10% on the announcement. 

In July 2016, Musk presented his vision of Tesla as an automotive innovator and renewable energy titan in his famous “Master Plan Part Deux.”

As CNBC previously reported, unsealed court documents, including emails between Musk and SolarCity execs, would later reveal that he knew SolarCity was facing a “liquidity crisis” even as Tesla pursued the acquisition.

“Three things need to happen to change investor sentiment: SolarCity solving its liquidity crisis, an LOI with Panasonic to address solar cell production risk, and a joint product demo,” Musk wrote to SolarCity execs in September that year. “Should be able to do all those before the shareholder vote.”

In October 2018, Tesla and SolarCity jointly announced a combined solar roof and battery pack. Musk showed off what looked like a solar panel, miniaturized and sleek enough to be mistaken for high-end roofing materials, at the Hollywood set of Desperate Housewives. 

After the deal

The hype event did help him to turn investor sentiment. In November, the deal was approved in a vote by 85% of shareholders. But after it closed, Tesla’s SolarCity business would falter.

Through the years, the company repeatedly delayed mass manufacturing its Solarglass roof tiles. The ones Musk presented as a production-ready prototype in 2016 were actually a non-functional design prototype.

Walmart sued Tesla after fires broke out on panels the company had installed atop their facilities. A former Tesla Energy employee filed a whistleblower complaint to federal agencies about the fire risks of Tesla’s solar rooftops. And Panasonic exited from the Buffalo plant that Tesla took over, once it was clear Tesla was not going to manufacture its solar roof tiles there.

While the Tesla solar roof tiles have not taken off, the company’s energy storage products are on a tear, as demand for lower-cost electricity from renewable sources picks up worldwide.

In the trial starting Monday in Wilmington, Delaware, Musk will be represented by attorneys with Ross Aronstam & Moritz (David E. Ross, Garrett B. Moritz and Benjamin Z. Grossberg). The trial is expected to run until July 23, 2021, unless the entities seek a settlement before it’s done.

Continue Reading

Technology

AI chipmaker Cerebras announces CFIUS clearance, a key step toward IPO

Published

on

By

AI chipmaker Cerebras announces CFIUS clearance, a key step toward IPO

Toronto , Canada – 20 June 2024; Andrew Feldman, co-founder and CEO of Cerebras Systems, speaks at the Collision conference in Toronto on June 20, 2024.

Ramsey Cardy | Sportsfile | Collision | Getty Images

Artificial intelligence chip developer Cerebras said Monday that it has obtained clearance from a U.S. committee to sell shares to Group 42, a Microsoft-backed AI company based in the United Arab Emirates.

That clearance came from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, and it’s a key step for Cerebras in its effort to go public. Cerebras competes with Nvidia, whose graphics processing units are the industry’s choice for training and running AI models, but most of its revenue comes from a customer called Group 42.

Cerebras filed to go public in September but has not provided details on timing or size for the initial public offering. The regulatory overhang was tied to the company’s relationship with Group 42, which was the source of 87% of Cerebras’ revenue in the first half of 2024, made the IPO look uncertain.

“We thank @POTUS for making America the best place in the world to invest in cutting-edge #AI technology,” Andrew Feldman, Cerebras’ co-founder and CEO, wrote in a Monday LinkedIn post. “We thank G42’s leadership and the UAE’s leadership for their ongoing partnership and commitment to supporting U.S headquartered AI companies.”

Lawmakers have previously worried about Group 42’s connections to China. Last year Mike Gallagher, then a Republican member of Congress from Wisconsin, said in a statement that he was “glad to see G42 reduce its investment exposure to Chinese companies.” Microsoft later announced a $1.5 billion investment in Group 42.

Both Cerebras and Group 42 had given voluntary notice to CFIUS about the sale of voting shares, according to the Sunnyvale, California-based company’s IPO prospectus. Group 42 had agreed to buy $335 million worth of Cerebras shares by April 15, according to the prospectus. The two companies later changed the agreement to say Group 42 would be buying non-voting shares, prompting them to withdraw their notice, because they said they did not believe CFIUS had jurisdiction over sales of non-voting securities.

CFIUS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Just a handful of technology companies have gone public since 2021, as higher interest rates made unprofitable companies less desirable. But in recent months, Cerebras and a few technology-related companies have taken steps toward IPOs, and last week, AI infrastructure provider CoreWeave went public.

CoreWeave shares fell 7% on Monday, its second day of trading.

WATCH: Cerebras Systems likely to postpone IPO after facing delays with CFIUS Review, reports say

Cerebras Systems likely to postpone IPO after facing delays with CFIUS Review, reports say

Continue Reading

Technology

Tesla plunges 36% in first quarter, worst performance for any period since 2022

Published

on

By

Tesla plunges 36% in first quarter, worst performance for any period since 2022

White House Senior Advisor, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk attends a cabinet meeting held by U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House on March 24, 2025 in Washington, DC. 

Win McNamee | Getty Images

Tesla’s stock just wrapped up its worst quarter since 2022 and suffered its third-steepest drop in the company’s 15 years on the public market.

Shares of the electric vehicle maker plunged 36% in the first three months of the year.

The last time Tesla had a worse stretch was at the end of 2022, when the stock cratered 54%. That quarter included CEO Elon Musk’s sale of more than $22 billion worth of Tesla shares to finance his $44 billion acquisition of Twitter, later renamed X. On Friday, Musk said his artificial intelligence startup xAI has acquired X in a deal valuing the social media company at $33 billion.

Tesla’s first-quarter drop wiped out over $460 billion in market cap. The majority of the quarter overlaps with Musk’s time in the second Trump administration, leading an effort to slash government spending and regulations, and terminating tens of thousands of federal employees.

Musk is leading what’s known as the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. As of Monday, the DOGE website claimed that, through March 24, the program had notched $140 billion in federal spending reductions, a number equal to less than one-third of Tesla’s valuation loss in the first quarter.

“My Tesla stock and the stock of everyone who holds Tesla has gone, went roughly in half,” Musk said on Sunday night at a rally he held in Green Bay, Wisconsin, to promote the right-wing judge he’s backing for Tuesday’s state supreme court election. “This is a very expensive job is what I’m saying.”

DOGE’s website contained numerous errors previously, causing the group to revise its own claims about its savings. And many of Musk’s allegations about waste, fraud and abuse in the federal budget have also been shown to be misleading or false.

Musk recently said on a Fox News interview with Bret Baier, that he and DOGE plan to slash $1 trillion from total federal spending levels by May.

Musk’s role in the White House is one factor weighing on Tesla’s stock, as it’s contributing to waves of protests, boycotts and violent attacks on Tesla stores and vehicles around the world. President Trump’s automotive tariffs are also a concern as they involve Tesla’s key suppliers, notably Mexico and China. Tariff fears sparked a broader selloff in tech stocks, with the Nasdaq closing the quarter down 10%, its biggest drop since 2022.

Tesla faces other headwinds, such as a steep decline in new vehicle sales, and pressure to deliver on Musk’s promises for robotaxis while rivals extend their lead in the market.

Musk has said Tesla will launch a driverless ride-hailing business in Austin, Texas in June, but some analysts are voicing skepticism about the company’s ability to meet that deadline.

For about a decade, Musk has promised that existing Tesla cars can be turned into robotaxi-ready vehicles with one more software upgrade. On the company’s fourth-quarter earnings call, Musk said that a forthcoming version of Tesla’s Full Self-Driving software will require a hardware upgrade as well.

While the first-quarter stock drop has been painful for shareholders, they’ve experienced similar volatility in the recent past. In the first quarter of 2024, the shares plunged 29% due to declining auto sales and increased competition. But the stock rallied the rest of the year to finish up 63%.

“Long term, I think Tesla stock is going to do fine,” Musk said at the Green Bay rally. “So, you know, maybe it’s a buying opportunity.”

WATCH: How cutting federal workers impacts government bloat

How cutting federal workers impacts government bloat

Continue Reading

Technology

Wall Street banks got meager payout from CoreWeave IPO

Published

on

By

Wall Street banks got meager payout from CoreWeave IPO

Michael Intrator, founder and CEO of CoreWeave Inc., Nvidia-backed cloud services provider, attends his company’s IPO at the Nasdaq Market in New York City on March 28, 2025.

Brendan McDermid | Reuters

Wall Street banks waited a long time for a billion dollar IPO from a U.S. tech company. They’re not making much money from the one they got.

The underwriting discount and commissions paid by artificial intelligence infrastructure provider CoreWeave, which hit the Nasdaq on Friday, amounted to just 2.8% of the total proceeds, according to a Monday filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. That means that of the $1.5 billion raised in the offering, $42 million went to underwriters.

That’s on the low side historically. Since Facebook’s record-setting IPO in 2012, there have been 25 venture-backed offerings for tech-related U.S. companies that have raised at least $1 billion, with an average underwriting fee of 4%, according to data from FactSet analyzed by CNBC. Facebook, in raising $16 billion, paid out the lowest percentage at 1.1%.

Morgan Stanley, which led the Facebook IPO, had the coveted lead left spot on CoreWeave, followed by JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs. The three banks are typically the leaders when it comes to tech IPOs. They’ve been counting on a revival in the market under President Donald Trump after a lull dating back to the end of 2021, when soaring inflation and rising interest rates put a halt on new offerings.

But CoreWeave’s initial trading sessions aren’t providing much confidence in a rebound. After lowering its price to $40 from a range of $47 to $55, CoreWeave failed to notch any gains on Friday and fell 7% on Monday to $37.20.

Declines in the broader market have weighed on CoreWeave, but investors also have specific concerns about the company, including its reliance on Microsoft as a customer, its hefty level of debt and the sustainability of a business model built around reselling Nvidia’s technology.

CoreWeave is the first among venture-backed companies to raise $1 billion or more since Freshworks in September of 2021. Freshworks carried an underwriting fee of 5.3%, while UiPath, which hit the market a few months earlier, paid 5%. In April of that year, AppLovin carried a 2.6% fee, the last time a billion-dollar offering had a lower fee than CoreWeave’s.

Among the few more recent IPOs — which all raised less than $1 billion — the fees were much higher. For Instacart and Klaviyo in 2023 and Reddit, Astera Labs, Rubrik and ServiceTitan last year, payouts were all at least 5%.

As lead in the CoreWeave deal, Morgan Stanley was given the highest percentage allocation of shares for clients at 27%. JPMorgan received 25%, and Goldman Sachs got 15%.

Those percentage allocations typically correspond fairly closely to how much of the fees each bank receives, though with a slightly higher amount to the lead bank for the management fee piece.

David Golden, a partner at Revolution Ventures who previously led tech investment banking at JPMorgan, said “there’s a little ‘black box’ involved in the underwriting compensation” that’s not disclosed in the prospectus. Based on his experience with IPOs and the historical norm, Golden estimated that Morgan Stanley got at least $13 million for its work, amounting to just over 30% of the total payout, while the number for Goldman Sachs would be slightly above $6 million.

Representatives from Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs declined to comment. A spokesperson for JPMorgan didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

WATCH: Cramer’s Mad Dash on CoreWeave

Cramer's Mad Dash: CoreWeave

Continue Reading

Trending