A reevaluated power dynamic between large corporations and retail shareholders unfolds as Tesla’s May 2025 corporate bylaw amendment seeks to limit shareholders' authority to sue for breach of fiduciary duties.  This policy adjustment is supported by Tesla's relocation from Delaware to Texas, where Texas-incorporated businesses can require a shareholder to own 3% before filing a claim.

What Changed?

Derivative lawsuits invoked by shareholders on behalf of a company to expose breaches of fiduciary duty by executives no longer remain a viable option for everyday investors.  Tesla’s latest policy limits the ability to file such lawsuits against its executives exclusively to owners holding a minimum of 3%.  Putting numbers into perspective, 3% equates to around 97 million shares, worth roughly $34 billion.

For legal context, prior shareholders' cases, specifically those of small owners, have benefited the company.  Back in 2018, Richard Tornetta, who retained only nine Tesla shares, contested Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s $56 billion pay package in a Delaware court.  While Tornetta’s stock amount fell short of the current 3% standard, justice was served as the judge voided the package, deeming it unfair and granting a win for Tornetta, all Tesla shareholders, and the company itself. The updated amendment undermines related possibilities for the future.

The Interstate Move

Leaving Delaware’s court system behind, Tesla’s reincorporation in Texas brought it under the jurisdiction of a markedly different legal environment, facilitating its own corporate modification.  In May 2025, Governor Greg Abbott signed a law permitting companies to set ownership thresholds before shareholders may file derivative lawsuits in the state of Texas. The new regulation includes additional alterations that revoke shareholder rights, like restricted access to information.  Supporters, backing Musk, wholly support Texas’s attempt to eradicate “rogue” or “nuisance” lawsuits.  Opponents of the law argue that the rule suppresses recourse for minority shareholders and minimizes the scope of books and records that can be requested.  Moreover, it contradicts 80 years of federal law.

Implications for Shareholders

A shareholder derivative lawsuit entitles shareholders to scrutinize the actions of management and board of directors that misalign with their own interests.  Under the new law, ordinary stockholders lose legal influence.  The imposition of a 3% ownership threshold curbs concerned shareholders' ability to hold boards accountable for the damage they impart on companies.  Tesla's move signals a shift from a fair playing field for all investors to one in which only the wealthiest may exercise significant legal dominion.  Reduced threat of litigation can embolden poor governance practices and enable deceitful officers and directors to harm companies.

Tesla’s Strategic Implications

Leaning into Texas's laws, Musk leveraged this favorable legal environment to restrict litigation and craft an oversight barrier from dissenting investors.  Musk's amplification of governmental advantage through relocation symbolizes unpredictability for the trajectory of corporate accountability across the entire business landscape.  Time will tell if other large-cap tech companies will follow Tesla's pursuit to effectively shut out minor shareholders that check company transparency and ensure ethical conduct.

If you have any questions about the companies you are invested in, Robbins LLP can assess whether they are acting in the best interests of shareholders. Please contact us for a free consultation.