Elon Musk’s legal team is seeking the recusal of a key Delaware judge, Kathaleen McCormick, from two ongoing Tesla lawsuits. The move comes amid allegations that McCormick demonstrated bias by expressing support for a LinkedIn post critical of Musk, according to court filings.
Musk’s attorneys argue that the judge’s “recent public support of LinkedIn posts that create a perception of bias against Mr. Musk in these cases” necessitates her recusal. They are requesting that the cases be reassigned to another judicial officer within the Delaware Court of Chancery.
The LinkedIn post in question reportedly lauded a recent San Francisco federal court verdict that could impose a financial penalty of over $2 billion on Musk. This verdict stemmed from a case where a jury found Musk had misled Twitter investors prior to his acquisition of the social media platform.
In response, Judge McCormick reportedly communicated with Musk’s legal team, stating that she had not read the full text of the LinkedIn post, did not support its content, and had not intended to click an emoji indicating support. She attributed the interaction to an accidental click and noted that she had reported “suspicious activity” on her account to LinkedIn.
Alex Spiro, a partner at Quinn Emanuel and an attorney for Musk, has expressed skepticism regarding the “glitch” explanation. He indicated to CNBC that inquiries with LinkedIn have been made and that he does not believe there is a basis for the claim of an accidental interaction. LinkedIn, owned by Microsoft, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
This development follows a significant ruling by McCormick in the shareholder derivative suit *Tornetta v. Musk*, where she ordered Tesla to invalidate Musk’s substantial 2018 CEO pay package, valued at approximately $56 billion in options. This decision led Musk to relocate his businesses, including Tesla, from Delaware to Texas and Nevada, and to advocate for others to follow suit.
However, in 2025, Delaware’s Supreme Court overturned McCormick’s decision regarding the pay package, deeming it an overly extreme remedy and stating that Tesla had not been adequately afforded the opportunity to determine fair compensation for Musk. The higher court ruled that the pay package should be reinstated.
Despite the Supreme Court’s intervention on the pay package, two other cases involving Musk and Tesla remain before Judge McCormick in Delaware courts. One case concerns the compensation of Tesla directors, while the other is a consolidated shareholder suit. The latter alleges that Musk breached his fiduciary duties to Tesla by establishing xAI, a potential competitor in the artificial intelligence sector.
Earlier this year, Tesla invested $2 billion into xAI, Musk’s artificial intelligence venture. Subsequently, SpaceX, Musk’s aerospace and defense company, acquired xAI, converting Tesla’s investment into SpaceX holdings. This maneuver has raised further questions about corporate governance and the alignment of interests between Musk’s various enterprises. The strategic integration of xAI within SpaceX, particularly in light of Tesla’s substantial investment, underscores Musk’s ambitious expansion into cutting-edge technologies and highlights the complex interplay between his business empire. The ongoing legal battles in Delaware are central to shaping the future governance and financial structures of these influential companies.
Original article, Author: Tobias. If you wish to reprint this article, please indicate the source:https://aicnbc.com/20137.html
