特斯拉執行穆斯克 為SolarCity收購案出庭作證 - 財經
特斯拉執行長穆斯克（Elon Musk）12日出庭作證，為2016年特斯拉投資26億美元進行的SolarCity收購案辯護，因為投資人指控穆斯克為私人利益操縱收購案。穆斯克若敗訴可能要賠償特斯拉26億美元，締造美國史上個人官司最高賠償金額。
美國德拉瓦州法院12日針對特斯拉收購SolarCity一案展開為期2周的開庭審案，將由副大法官史萊茲（Joseph Slights）裁定穆斯克是否主導這場被控對特斯拉股東不公平的收購案。
提告的多個工會退休基金及資產管理人都是特斯拉股東。這些股東質疑當年身兼特斯拉及SolarCity董事長的穆斯克刻意隱瞞SolarCity資金危機，誤導特斯拉董事會支持收購，並以高於市值的價格收購SolarCity，原因是SolarCity是穆斯克堂兄弟經營的公司，且穆斯克對SolarCity持股22％。
馬斯克收購SolarCity遭指中飽私囊 若敗訴恐遭求償26億美元
特斯拉 (TSLA-US) 執行長馬斯克周一（12 日）出庭為 5 年前特斯拉斥資 26 億美元進行的 SolarCity 收購案進行辯護，因特斯拉股東指控馬斯克為中飽私囊而操作該筆收購案。倘若敗訴，馬斯克恐將面臨 26 億美元的天價賠償金。
這起訴訟要回溯至 2016 年，當年馬斯克要特斯拉董事會以高於市值的 26 億美元，收購當時已經瀕臨破產的太陽能發電公司 SolarCity。
提起訴訟的股東們認為，SolarCity 是馬斯克的堂兄弟創立，且馬斯克在該公司與特斯拉皆擁有 22% 的股份，因此該筆交易視為是馬斯克為救自己人公司免於破產的舉動。
雖然特斯拉董事會成員在 2020 年底達成 6,000 萬美元的和解協議，但馬斯克選擇與董事會對簿公堂。
不過這次訴訟案是由代表公司的股東提起，而不是個人或基金，若原告勝訴，所獲賠償將歸特斯拉，而非提起訴訟的利益相關人。
這次審判的最大問題是，馬斯克當時的收購行為是否符合特斯拉股東的最大利益，還是利於馬斯克本人、自己家族企業 SolarCity 或自身私人 SpaceX 公司的中飽私囊行為。
馬斯克在法庭上表示，這是一筆換股交易，自己在兩家公司的持股比例幾乎完全相同，因此沒有任何中飽私囊之嫌。他也說不會操控董事會成員的任命、解職或薪水。
目前是全球第二大富豪的馬斯克也說，自己試圖不擔任特斯拉執行長，不認為自己應該被公眾視為操控公司的人。
此次特斯拉收購 SolarCity 一案將展開為期兩周的庭審，但預料可能需要好幾個月過後才會有最終宣判。
Elon Musk defends Tesla’s $2.6B acquisition of SolarCity in Delaware court – TechCrunch
Elon Musk is testifying Monday morning in a lawsuit over Tesla’s 2016 acquisition of SolarCity, a $2.6 billion transaction that a group of shareholders allege was a “bailout” of the failing solar company. The shareholders are seeking repayment to Tesla of the cost to purchase SolarCity.
The suit, filed in the Delaware District Court in 2017, alleges that SolarCity was near bankruptcy at the time of the acquisition. Musk, who was the ailing company’s chairman of the board of directors and its largest stockholder, directly benefited from the transaction, as did some of his friends and family, the lawsuit alleges. SolarCity’s founders, Lyndon and Peter Rive, are Musk’s cousins.
SolarCity “had consistently failed to turn a profit, had mounting debt, and was burning through cash at an unsustainable rate,” the plaintiffs say. The suit goes on to note that the company had accumulated over $3 billion in debt in its 10-year history, nearly half of which was due for repayment before the end of 2017. The purchase by Tesla was approved by vote by 85% of shareholders.
Attorneys for Musk say that the acquisition was part of the CEO’s longer-term vision to transform Tesla into a transportation and energy company. In a blog post titled “Master Plan, Part Deux,” published to Tesla’s website around the time of the deal’s closing, Musk says that combining SolarCity and the electric vehicle startup was key to realizing his vision of combining Powerwall (Tesla’s home and industry battery storage product) and solar roof panels.
In his testimony Monday, Musk said Tesla was forced to shift focus away from its solar business to meet production deadlines for the Model 3 sedan, The Washington Post’s Will Oremus tweeted from outside the courtroom. USA Today reporter Isabel Hughes, also at the courtroom, tweeted that Musk blamed the pandemic for poor performance of the company’s solar division. He was being questioned by attorney for the plaintiffs Randall Baron, whom Musk called “a shameful person” at a 2019 deposition.
Musk’s lawyers say that he recused himself from board discussions and negotiations relating to the acquisition — but the plaintiffs maintain that the recusal was “superficial.” A primary question for the court will be whether Musk exerted undue influence over the transaction, and whether he and other board members concealed information relating to the transaction from shareholders.
The other board members named in the suit — Robyn Denholm, Ira Ehrenpreis, Antonio Gracias, Kimbal Musk and Stephen Jurvetson — settled for $60 million last year, plus $16.8 million in legal fees and expenses, paid for by insurance. The trial, with Musk as the sole defendant, was postponed a year due to the coronavirus pandemic.
The trial is expected to last 10 business days. The Delaware Court of Chancery, where the suit is being heard, does not have a jury; instead, the case will be heard by judge Vice-Chancellor Joseph Slights III. Even if Slights finds that the deal was improper, he could order Musk to pay far less than the $2.6 billion that Tesla paid for SolarCity at the time.