Commitments and Contingencies | Note 9 – Commitments and Contingencies Operating Lease Arrangements in Buffalo, New York and Shanghai, China For a description of our operating lease arrangements in Buffalo, New York, and Shanghai, China, refer to Note 15, Commitments and Contingencies , in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2022. As of March 31, 2023, we expect to meet the requirements under these arrangements based on our current and anticipated level of operations. Legal Proceedings Litigation Relating to the SolarCity Acquisition Between September 1, 2016 and October 5, 2016, seven lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery by purported stockholders of Tesla challenging our acquisition of SolarCity Corporation (“SolarCity”). Following consolidation, the lawsuit names as defendants the members of Tesla’s board of directors as then constituted and alleges, among other things, that board members breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the acquisition. The complaint asserts both derivative claims and direct claims on behalf of a purported class and seeks, among other relief, unspecified monetary damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. On January 22, 2020, all of the director defendants except Elon Musk reached a settlement to resolve the lawsuit against them for an amount to be paid entirely under the applicable insurance policy. The settlement, which does not involve an admission of any wrongdoing by any party, was approved by the Court on August 17, 2020. Tesla received payment of approximately $ 43 million on September 16, 2020, which has been recognized in our consolidated statements of operations as a reduction to Selling, general and administrative operating expenses for costs previously incurred related to the acquisition of SolarCity. The trial was held from July 12 to July 23, 2021 and on August 16, 2021. On October 22, 2021, the Court approved the parties’ joint stipulation that (a) the class is decertified and the action shall continue exclusively as a derivative action under Court of Chancery Rule 23.1 and (b) the direct claims against Elon Musk are dismissed with prejudice. Following post-trial briefing, post-trial argument was held on January 18, 2022. On April 27, 2022, the Court entered judgment in favor of Mr. Musk on all counts. On May 26, 2022, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. Oral argument was held before the Supreme Court of Delaware on March 29, 2023. These plaintiffs and others filed parallel actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on or about April 21, 2017. They include claims for violations of the federal securities laws and breach of fiduciary duties by Tesla’s board of directors. Those actions have been consolidated and stayed pending the above-referenced Chancery Court litigation. Litigation Relating to 2018 CEO Performance Award On June 4, 2018, a purported Tesla stockholder filed a putative class and derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Elon Musk and the members of Tesla’s board of directors as then constituted, alleging corporate waste, unjust enrichment and that such board members breached their fiduciary duties by approving the stock-based compensation plan awarded to Elon Musk in 2018. The complaint seeks, among other things, monetary damages and rescission or reformation of the stock-based compensation plan. On August 31, 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint; plaintiff filed its opposition brief on November 1, 2018; and defendants filed a reply brief on December 13, 2018. The hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on May 9, 2019. On September 20, 2019, the Court granted the motion to dismiss as to the corporate waste claim but denied the motion as to the breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims. Defendants’ answer was filed on December 3, 2019. On January 25, 2021, the Court conditionally certified certain claims and a class of Tesla stockholders as a class action. On September 30, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a verified amended derivative complaint. On October 1, 2021, defendants Kimbal Musk and Steve Jurvetson moved for summary judgment as to the claims against them. Following the motion, plaintiff agreed to voluntarily dismiss the claims against Kimbal Musk and Steve Jurvetson. Plaintiff also moved for summary judgment on October 1, 2021. On October 27, 2021, the Court approved the parties’ joint stipulation that, among other things, (a) all claims against Kimbal Musk and Steve Jurvetson in the Complaint are dismissed with prejudice; (b) the class is decertified and the action shall continue exclusively as a derivative action under Court of Chancery Rule 23.1; and (c) the direct claims against the remaining defendants are dismissed with prejudice. On November 18, 2021, the remaining defendants (a) moved for partial summary judgment, (b) opposed plaintiff’s summary judgment motion and (c) opposed the plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint. In January 2022, the case was assigned to a different judge. On February 24, 2022, the court (i) granted plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint, and (ii) canceled oral argument on the summary judgment motions, stating that the court is “skeptical that this litigation can be resolved based on the undisputed facts” and the “case is going to trial,” but that the “parties may reassert their arguments made in support of summary judgment in their pre-trial and post-trial briefs.” Trial was held November 14-18, 2022. Post-trial briefing and argument are now complete. Litigation Related to Directors’ Compensation On June 17, 2020, a purported Tesla stockholder filed a derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery, purportedly on behalf of Tesla, against certain of Tesla’s current and former directors regarding compensation awards granted to Tesla’s directors, other than Elon Musk, between 2017 and 2020. The suit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, unspecified damages and other relief. Defendants filed their answer on September 17, 2020. Trial is currently set for November 27, 2023, to December 1, 2023. Litigation Relating to Potential Going Private Transaction Between August 10, 2018 and September 6, 2018, nine purported stockholder class actions were filed against Tesla and Elon Musk in connection with Mr. Musk’s August 7, 2018 Twitter post that he was considering taking Tesla private. On January 16, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and added as defendants the members of Tesla’s board of directors. The consolidated complaint asserts claims for violations of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified damages and other relief. The parties stipulated to certification of a class of stockholders, which the court granted on November 25, 2020. Trial started on January 17, 2023, and on February 3, 2023, a jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendants on all counts. After trial, plaintiffs filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law and a motion for new trial, which the defendants opposed. Between October 17, 2018 and March 8, 2021, seven derivative lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, purportedly on behalf of Tesla, against Mr. Musk and the members of Tesla’s board of directors, as constituted at relevant times, in relation to statements made and actions connected to a potential going private transaction, with certain of the lawsuits challenging additional Twitter posts by Mr. Musk, among other things. Five of those actions were consolidated, and all seven actions have been stayed pending resolution of the above-referenced consolidated purported stockholder class action. In addition to these cases, two derivative lawsuits were filed on October 25, 2018 and February 11, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, purportedly on behalf of Tesla, against Mr. Musk and the members of the Tesla board of directors as then constituted. Those cases have also been consolidated and stayed pending the entry of judgment in the above-referenced consolidated purported stockholder class action. On October 21, 2022, a lawsuit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery by a purported shareholder of Tesla alleging, among other things, that board members breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their oversight of the Company’s 2018 settlement with the SEC, as amended. Among other things, the plaintiff seeks reforms to the Company’s corporate governance and internal procedures, unspecified damages, and attorneys’ fees. The parties reached an agreement to stay the case until June 5, 2023. On November 15, 2021, JPMorgan Chase Bank (“JP Morgan”) filed a lawsuit against Tesla in the Southern District of New York alleging breach of a stock warrant agreement that was entered into as part of a convertible notes offering in 2014. In 2018, JP Morgan informed Tesla that it had adjusted the strike price based upon Mr. Musk’s August 7, 2018 Twitter post that he was considering taking Tesla private. Tesla disputed JP Morgan’s adjustment as a violation of the parties’ agreement. In 2021, Tesla delivered shares to JP Morgan per the agreement, which they duly accepted. JP Morgan now alleges that it is owed approximately $ 162 million as the value of additional shares that it claims should have been delivered as a result of the adjustment to the strike price in 2018. On January 24, 2022, Tesla filed multiple counterclaims as part of its answer to the underlying lawsuit, asserting among other points that JP Morgan should have terminated the stock warrant agreement in 2018 rather than make an adjustment to the strike price that it should have known would lead to a commercially unreasonable result. Tesla believes that the adjustments made by JP Morgan were neither proper nor commercially reasonable, as required under the stock warrant agreements. JP Morgan filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which Tesla opposed, and that motion is currently pending before the Court. Litigation and Investigations Relating to Alleged Discrimination and Harassment On October 4, 2021, in a case captioned Diaz v. Tesla , a jury in the Northern District of California returned a verdict against Tesla on claims by a former contingent worker that he was subjected to race discrimination while assigned to work at Tesla’s Fremont Factory from 2015-2016. On November 16, 2021, Tesla filed a post-trial motion for relief that included a request for a new trial or reduction of the jury’s damages. On April 13, 2022, the Court granted Tesla’s motion in part, reducing the total damages and conditionally denied the motion for a new trial subject to the plaintiff’s acceptance of the reduced award. On June 21, 2022, the plaintiff rejected the reduced award and, as a result, on June 27, 2022, the Court ordered a new trial on damages only, which commenced on March 27, 2023, after which a jury returned a verdict of $ 3,175,000 . As a result, the damages awarded against Tesla were reduced from an initial $ 136.9 million (October 4, 2021) down to $ 15 million (April 13, 2022), and then further down to $ 3.175 million (April 3, 2023). On February 9, 2022, shortly after the first Diaz jury verdict, the California Civil Rights Department (”CRD,” formerly “DFEH”) filed a civil complaint against Tesla in Alameda County, California Superior Court, alleging systemic race discrimination, hostile work environment and pay equity claims, among others. CRD’s amended complaint seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. On September 22, 2022, Tesla filed a cross complaint against CRD, alleging that it violated the Administrative Procedures Act by failing to follow statutory pre-requisites prior to filing suit and that cross complaint was subject to a sustained demurrer, which Tesla later amended and refiled. The case is now in discovery. Additionally, on June 1, 2022 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued a cause finding against Tesla that closely parallels the CRD’s allegations. Tesla will engage in a mandatory mediation with the EEOC in June 2023. On June 16, 2022, two Tesla stockholders filed separate derivative actions in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, purportedly on behalf of Tesla, against certain of Tesla’s current and former directors. Both suits assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and violation of the federal securities laws in connection with alleged race and gender discrimination and sexual harassment. Among other things, plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, unspecified damages payable to Tesla, and attorneys’ fees. On July 22, 2022, the Court consolidated the two cases and on September 6, 2022, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. On November 7, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case. Plaintiffs filed a response of January 13, 2023, and the defendants replied on February 17, 2023. Other Litigation Related to Our Products and Services We are also subject to various lawsuits, including proposed class actions, that seek monetary and other injunctive relief. For example, on September 14, 2022, a proposed class action was filed against Tesla, Inc. and related entities in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging various claims about the Company’s driver assistance technology systems under state and federal law. This case was later consolidated with several other proposed class actions, and a Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed on October 28, 2022, which seeks damages and other relief on behalf of all persons who purchased or leased from Tesla between January 1, 2016 to the present. On October 5, 2022 a proposed class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York asserting similar state and federal law claims against the same defendants. On March 22, 2023, the plaintiffs in the California consolidated action filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to order Tesla to (1) cease using the term “Full Self-Driving Capability” (FSDC), (2) cease the sale and activation of FSDC and deactivate FSDC on Tesla vehicles, and (3) provide certain notices to consumers about proposed court-findings about the accuracy of the use of the terms Autopilot and FSDC. On February 27, 2023, a proposed class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Tesla, Inc., Elon Musk and certain current and former Company executives. The complaint alleges that the defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions about the Company’s Autopilot and FSDC technologies and seeks money damages and other relief on behalf of persons who purchased Tesla stock between February 19, 2019 and February 17, 2023. On April 13, 2023, a putative Tesla shareholder filed a related shareholder derivative complaint against the members of Tesla’s board of directors and certain current and former executives, alleging contribution for violations of the federal securities law, breach of fiduciary duties, waste, and unjust enrichment. The complaint asserts derivative claims and seeks, among other relief, unspecified monetary damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. On March 14, 2023 a proposed class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Several similar complaints have also been filed in the same court. These complaints allege that Tesla violates federal antitrust and warranty laws through its repair, service, and maintenance practices and seeks, among other relief, damages for persons who paid Tesla for repairs services or Tesla compatible replacement parts from March 2019 to March 2023. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in these matters; however, we cannot predict the outcome or impact. We are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with these claims, unless noted. Certain Investigations and Other Matters We receive requests for information from regulators and governmental authorities, such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, the SEC, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and various state, federal, and international agencies. We routinely cooperate with such regulatory and governmental requests, including subpoenas, formal and informal requests and other investigations and inquiries. For example, the SEC had issued subpoenas to Tesla in connection with Elon Musk’s prior statement that he was considering taking Tesla private. The take-private investigation was resolved and closed with a settlement entered into with the SEC in September 2018 and as further clarified in April 2019 in an amendment. The SEC also has periodically issued subpoenas to us seeking information on our governance processes around compliance with the SEC settlement, as amended. Separately, the company has received requests from the DOJ for documents related to Tesla’s Autopilot and FSD features. To our knowledge no government agency in any ongoing investigation has concluded that any wrongdoing occurred. We cannot predict the outcome or impact of any ongoing matters. Should the government decide to pursue an enforcement action, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our business, results of operation, prospects, cash flows and financial position. We are also subject to various other legal proceedings and claims that arise from the normal course of business activities. If an unfavorable ruling or development were to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, prospects, cash flows, financial position and brand. |