3/28/2025 at 9:42:28 PM
He has done this move before with Tesla buying Solar City. When you do a deal with yourself you can assign any value you want to assets, it isn’t a competitive process. In the previous case Solar City was dying but its acquisition by Tesla was pitched as a great synergy.https://www.businessinsider.com/solarcity-tesla-energy-belea...
There were a few lawsuits from Tesla shareholders about the acquisition regarding self dealing but they didn’t succeed:
by bhouston
3/28/2025 at 10:54:47 PM
You’re burying the lede here, which is that the Delaware Chancery Court rules that Tesla had paid a fair price for Solar City: https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-wins-solarcity-tes...by rayiner
3/28/2025 at 11:07:36 PM
OP mentions the lawsuits did not succeedIts not like the courts are investment banks with an evaluation arm. They are just judging if anything reaches the point where shareholders were legally harmed, which still gives a lot of gray area to the acquiring company.
by marinmania
3/28/2025 at 11:55:51 PM
Lawsuits can fail for lots of reasons without a decision on the merits. It seems relevant that the reason the lawsuit failed is because the court looked at the fairness of the transaction and determined that Tesla paid a fair price.by rayiner
3/29/2025 at 12:08:54 AM
This whole thread is true consistent statements that differ only in emphasis.by nmca
3/29/2025 at 1:26:17 AM
> differ only in emphasisThe commenter you are responding to is explicitly intending to place more emphasis on the reason why the lawsuit failed. That is why they used the phrase “burying the lede” in their initial comment.
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF