In Re Tesla, Inc. Derivative Litigation

── In Re Tesla, Inc. Derivative Litigation ── Court: Court of Chancery of Delaware Date: April 13, 2026 Category: General IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE TESLA, INC. ) Consolidated & Coordinated DERIVATIVE LITIGATION ) C.A. No. 2024-0631-BWD OPINION GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS Date Submitted: April 3, 2026 Date Decided: April 13, 2026 P. Bradford deLeeuw, DELEEUW LAW LLC, Wilmington, DE; OF COUNSEL: Olimpio Lee Squitieri, SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP, New York, NY; Fletcher Moore, MOORE LAW, PLLC, New York, NY; Attorneys for Plaintiff Michael Perry. Bruce E. Jameson, Marcus E. Montejo, Kevin H. Davenport, John G. Day, PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A., Wilmington, DE; OF COUNSEL: Daniel P. Chiplock, John T. Nicolaou, Sean A. Petterson, Miranda K. Litwak, LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP, New York, NY; Richard M. Heimann, Katherine Lubin Benson, Bruce W. Leppla, LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP, San Francisco, CA; Attorneys for Plaintiff Employees’ Retirement System of Rhode Island. Christine M. Mackintosh, Vivek Upadhya, William G. Passannante II, GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A., Wilmington, DE; Thomas Curry, SAXENA WHITE P.A., Wilmington, DE; Ned Weinberger, LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP, Wilmington, DE; OF COUNSEL: David J. Schwartz and David L. Wales, SAXENA WHITE P.A., White Plains, NY; Adam D. Warden, SAXENA WHITE P.A., Boca Raton, FL; Brian Schall, SCHALL LAW FIRM, Los Angeles, CA; John Vielandi and Joshua M. Glasser, LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP, New York, NY; Attorneys for Plaintiffs Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Pension Fund, Daniel Hazen, and Michael Giampietro. David E. Ross and Garrett B. Moritz, ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP, Wilmington, DE; OF COUNSEL: Boris Feldman, Doru Gavril, Rebecca Lockert, J. Mia Tsui, FRESHFIELDS US LLP, Redwood City, CA; Attorneys for Defendants Kimbal Musk, Ira Ehrenpreis, James Murdoch, Robyn Denholm, Kathleen Wilson- Thompson, Joe Gebbia, JB Straubel, Larry Ellison, and Hiromichi (Hiro) Mizuno. Michael A. Barlow, Shannon M. Doughty, Hayden J. Driscoll, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP, Wilmington, DE; OF COUNSEL: Alex B. Spiro, Christopher D. Kercher, Jonathan E. Feder, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP, New York, NY; Attorneys for Defendant Elon Musk. John L. Reed, Ronald N. Brown, III, Caleb G. Johnson, Daniel P. Klusman, DLA PIPER LLP (US), Wilmington, DE; Rudolf Koch, Kevin M. Gallagher, Andrew L. Milam, RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A., Wilmington, DE; OF COUNSEL: Brian T. Frawley, Matthew A. Schwartz, Michael T. Lemanski, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP, New York, NY; Attorneys for Nominal Defendant Tesla, Inc. DAVID, V.C.  In April 2024, Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla” or the “Company”) announced that it would seek stockholder approval to convert from a Delaware corporation to a Texas corporation. At the time, Tesla’s bylaws designated Delaware as the exclusive forum for derivative litigation brought on behalf of the Company. As part of its redomestication to Texas, Tesla proposed new bylaws designating Texas as the exclusive forum for derivative actions. After Tesla announced its proposal to redomesticate and adopt a Texas forum selection bylaw, stockholders filed three derivative lawsuits in this Court, which have been consolidated or coordinated in the present action. Days—and in one instance, hours—after the lawsuits were filed, Tesla stockholders voted to approve the redomestication and adopt the Texas forum selection bylaw. On the present motions, the defendants ask the Court to enforce that bylaw and dismiss the actions in favor of a Texas forum. The plaintiffs argue that the Court should enforce the prior Delaware forum selection bylaw that was in place when the actions were filed instead of the now- operative Texas forum selection bylaw. Although the plaintiffs advocate for an inflexible rule requiring the Court to assess proper venue based on the facts as they existed when the complaints were filed, courts sometimes loo