In the 90s there was a program to improve environmental monitoring led by VP Al Gore. The manufacturing plant where I worked was a sort of pilot. We used more MEK than was produced in the US so the plant had a tremendous capability to have emissions.
The paper work and controls were arduous and not very sound. Meaning you did a lot of work that didn’t necessarily mean you didn’t have significant emissions. We also spent capital to meet requirements that didn’t do much to reduce emissions. While at the same time could have used the capital to significantly reduce emissions.
We had a very simple proposal. The total emissions for the plant would be the total amount of emissions controlled materials (mainly solvents like MEK) that we purchased. Real simple right? We did not produce solvent and we did not sell solvent so anything we bought certainly went into the atmosphere either during processing or when the small fraction that remained in the product finally was emitted.
Way too simple. It was supposedly rejected and the whole Al Gore project stopped because of the reduction in people required to review and audit our paper work.
PS we used more MEK than was produced because we recycled nearly all the solvent.
Al Gore lived in my entry at Dunster House until I moved to another entry in my senior year. He was a turkey then, and has remained true to himself throughout his existence. Nothing Al Gore has done in all these years was worth the chemicals on the match used to burn it.
Yet plaintiff lawyers apparently winners*. Tesla apparently moderate loser.
* Plaintiff granted nominal damages. But attorneys granted fees. Not clear what further proceedings will occur in the Chancery Court as the Supreme Court appears to want to keep the Chancery Court from embarrassing itself any more:
Although the Justices have varying views on the liability determination, we agree that rescission was an improper remedy and therefore choose that narrower path to resolve this appeal. 80 As explained below, we reverse because: (i) Musk could not be restored to the status quo ante after working six years to meet the 2018 Grant’s market capitalization and operational milestones; (ii) his existing equity value increase based on his 2009 and 2012 Grants did not substitute for his return to the status quo ante; and (iii) it was not the Defendants’ burden to prove that the parties could be placed in the same position before Musk’s performance.
p. 27.
Tesla argued that the Plaintiff’s counsel’s fees should be based upon a quantum meruit approach.167 They also proposed four times their lodestar. 168 Although we would ordinarily remand for a reassessment of fees, we make an exception based on the length of this litigation and not to burden the Court of Chancery, which has devoted enormous time and attention to this case over many years, at great personal sacrifice. We find that the Plaintiff’s counsel is entitled to a cash payment reflecting counsels’ lodestar and a four times multiplier. Although the Plaintiff failed in his main objective of achieving a complete rescission of the 2018 Grant and received nominal damages, Tesla and its stockholders benefited by counsel’s efforts.169
But before the trial can begin, a jury must be selected, and Judge Charles R. Breyer had a tougher time than usual, due to the notoriousreputation of the defendant.
Breyer, a Clinton appointee and younger brother of former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, began jury selection by commenting to the lawyers for both sides that Musk had achieved a level of fame that was “like the President of the United States,” and even if they “search the entire country,” it would probably be nearly impossible to find someone who did not have some sort of opinion about Musk.
“As a public figure he will excite strong views, and for him in particular, people have strong views,” Breyer added. “The question is, and courts are very clear about this, is whether they can set them aside.”
