Skip to main content

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, U.S. 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.

Story continues below advertisement

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.

Story continues below advertisement

“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.

The case is Wochos v Tesla Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 17-05828.

Report an error
Tickers mentioned in this story
Unchecking box will stop auto data updates
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter