<div id="readability-page-1">Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s legal team has filed a motion demanding that Delaware Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick disqualify herself from an ongoing high-stakes Tesla shareholder lawsuit. The filing, submitted March 25, cites an apparent LinkedIn “support” reaction from McCormick’s account to a post celebrating a $2 billion jury verdict against Musk in a separate California securities-fraud case. The move escalates long-simmering tensions between Musk, Tesla, and the Delaware judiciary, where McCormick previously presided over the landmark challenge to Musk’s record $56 billion 2018 compensation package. <blockquote>Delaware Supreme Court reinstates Elon Musk’s 2018 Tesla CEO pay package</blockquote> The LinkedIn post was written by Harry Plotkin, a Southern California jury consultant who assisted the plaintiffs who sued Musk over 2022 tweets about his Twitter acquisition. Plotkin praised the trial team for “standing up for the little guy against the richest man in the world.” The New York Post initially reported the story. A banner on the post read “Katie McCormick supports this,” using LinkedIn’s heart-in-hand “support” icon, an endorsement stronger than a simple “like.” Musk’s lawyers argue the action creates “a perception of bias against Mr. Musk,” warranting immediate recusal to preserve judicial impartiality. McCormick swiftly denied intentional endorsement. In a letter to attorneys, she stated she was unaware of the interaction until LinkedIn notified her. She wrote: “I either did not click the ‘support’ icon at all, or I did so accidentally. I do not believe that I did it accidentally.” The chancellor maintains the reaction was inadvertent, but critics, including Musk allies, call the explanation implausible given the platform’s deliberate interface. McCormick’s central role in the Tesla pay-package litigation underscores the stakes. In Tornetta v. Musk, in January 2024, she ruled the 2018 performance-based stock-option grant, potentially worth $56 billion at the time and now valued far higher, was invalid. The package consisted of 12 tranches of options, each vesting only after Tesla achieved ambitious market-cap and operational milestones. McCormick found Musk exercised “transaction-specific control” over Tesla as a controlling stockholder, the board lacked sufficient independence, and proxy disclosures to shareholders were materially deficient. Applying the entire-fairness standard, she concluded defendants failed to prove the deal was fair in process or price and ordered full rescission, an “unfathomable” remedy she described as necessary to deter fiduciary breaches. After the ruling, Tesla shareholders ratified the package a second time in June 2024. McCormick rejected that ratification in December 2024, holding that post-trial votes could not cure defects. Tesla appealed. On December 19 of last year, the Delaware Supreme Court unanimously reversed the rescission remedy while largely leaving McCormick’s liability findings intact. The high court deemed total unwinding inequitable and impractical, restoring the package but awarding the plaintiff only nominal $1 damages plus reduced attorneys’ fees. Musk ultimately received the full award. The current recusal motion arises in yet another Tesla derivative suit before McCormick. Legal observers say granting it could signal heightened scrutiny of judicial social-media activity; denial might reinforce perceptions of an insular Delaware bench. Broader fallout includes accelerated corporate migration out of Delaware, Musk himself moved Tesla’s incorporation to Texas after the first ruling, and renewed debate over whether the state’s specialized courts remain the gold standard for corporate governance disputes. A decision is expected soon; whichever way it lands, the episode highlights the fragile balance between judicial independence and public confidence in high-profile litigation. The post Elon Musk demands Delaware Judge recuse herself after ‘support’ post celebrating $2B court loss appeared first on TESLARATI.</div>

TSLA

TSLG

Tesla CEO Elon Musk's legal team has filed a motion for Delaware Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick to recuse herself from a shareholder lawsuit. This follows her LinkedIn reaction to a post celebrating a $2 billion jury verdict against Musk in a separate case. Musk's lawyers argue this creates a perception of bias. McCormick claims the reaction was accidental. The situation raises questions about judicial impartiality and social media activity, with potential implications for corporate governance in Delaware.

- Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s legal team has filed a motion for Delaware Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick to disqualify herself from a shareholder lawsuit due to her apparent endorsement of a post celebrating a jury verdict against him.  
- The motion cites concerns of perceived bias, while McCormick claims her support was unintentional and denies any bias.  
- This situation raises questions about judicial social-media activity and may influence corporate governance trends in Delaware, as Musk has already relocated Tesla's incorporation to Texas.

Teslarati

Tesla

Leverage Shares 2X Long TSLA Daily ETF

GraniteShares 1.25 Long TSLA Daily ETF

GraniteShares 2x Long TSLA Daily ETF

Simplify Volt TSLA Revolution ETF

T-Rex 2X Inverse Tesla Daily Target ETF

Direxion Daily TSLA Bull 2X Shares

AXS TSLA Bear Daily ETF

T-Rex 2X Long Tesla Daily Target ETF

GraniteShares 2x Short TSLA Daily ETF

Direxion Daily TSLA Bear 1X Shares

Elon Musk demands Delaware Judge recuse herself after ‘support’ post celebrating $2B court loss