Surely it is more reasonable for them to get the same reward as all the other shareholders...

Shafted

... on the other hand, it could also be mere greed on the part of the lawyers.

The lawyers will want the garden.

There are no grounds for that.

I predict that there's going to be a terrible accident soon. An item of space debris, of "unkown origin" is soon going to fall on this law firms' offices.

I don't know what gives me this idea. It's just a feeling...

Well, Musk DID put a Tesla in orbit already.

That said, it's hard to decide who to root for here :)

Yes, it's not often I feel almost in agreement with Musk!

Musk said: "The lawyers who did nothing but damage Tesla want $6 billion. Criminal."

When did E.M. start signing his Xcretions " Criminal "?

After releasing an EDM track a few years ago, maybe he's taking up gansta rap?

.. when they were engaged by the shareholders? Surely they should foot the bill?

Whilst they might have won, I don't think that lets you set any arbitrary fee you like.

I’m happy to wallow in the thought, Missing Semicolon, .... Great minds think alike ..... and almost exactly at the same time too, which is a neat trick too. :-)

The shareholders are Tesla.

Oh no they are not! Tesla are the workers who build the products, and the engineers who design the products that they sell to make the firm it's profits. I'll even go so far as to include the Janitorial staff who keep the place clean, the HR and finance staff that keep the people paid and the middle management that keep the people moving in (more or less) one direction.

The Sshareholders and the C-Suite are the vultures who skim the cream off the top, without adding an iota of value to the firm.

On the topic of this specific article - The shareholders who brought this case should absolutely be the ones paying their lawyer's fee. They have stopped an additional (and hugely excessive) number of shares from going to El Musky, and so by virtue of a smaller share pool, the value of their stock has increased. They gain, so they should pay their own bloody lawyers...

These ambulance chasers have set such a high figure, probably to try for shock value, and so will "settle" for only 10% of that (which is still a ridiculously high value). I hope the judge comes down on them like a ton of bricks. Isnt there something like bringing the profession into disrepute with which to smack these idiots with? Threaten their licence to practice law unless they come back with a clearly reasonable value quick smart...

If the shareholders >are< Tesla, who brought the lawsuit?

Tesla is a "non-human person" in US law I believe, although IANAL.

This kind of arrangement is quite common in "no fee" class action suits and is, arguably (though I wouldn't argue this myself), a good deal for shareholders. Certainly a lot less than the $ 57 million they were on the hook for.

But US tort law really is fucked (and many law firms would agree with this): companies often prefer bankruptcy to damages. But I can't see the even more dysfunctional than usual Congress passing the necessary reforms.

Lawyers representing shareholders who quashed Elon Musk's $56 billion Tesla compensation package have submitted a request for nearly $6 billion in the electric car maker's stock as their fee.

????? Hmmm? Is that shareholders lawyers representation not tantamount to the lawyers being employed by said shareholders and thus it is actually they, the disgruntled and covetous shareholders, who be jointly and severally liable to pay such a ludicrous extortionate bill if it is not deemed justifiably criminal to ridiculous excess?

If the lawyers get their $6B in shares and the right to sell immediately, isn't that going to cause a dip in the share price and thus "deprive" their clients? And after "discovery" etc, during the case, could these lawyers be wanting that "sell now" caveat because they know something about Tesla and there might well be insider trading?

As the Lawyers represented some, but not all, of the shareholders (I believe Musk is a shareholder, after all, and I doubt he agreed to this action), and they did not represent Tesla, then it does make sense that those the Lawyers represented should be the ones to pay up. Especially as having Tesla pay would financially harm the shareholders who didn't agree to this action (you can exclude Musk here if you like - I'm thinking of the others who weren't asked if they wanted this).

Also: Shouldn't the costs for representation be detailed in the contract (between shareholders represented and the law firm)?

Unless: Did the Judge assign the legal costs to Tesla? If so, wasn't the costs limited by the court?

Although, I think it would be fair if the shareholders who engaged the lawyers had to provide the shares the lawyers are demanding, and if they can't... the lawyers should sue the shareholders they were representing.

Sometimes I think the American legal system is a real mess. Then again, the UK system isn't that much better.

They are a species that is in dire need of becoming endangered.

So you spent a few hundred hours preparing and presenting a case ? That does not justify $300K/hour in any way, shape or form. You did your fucking job, and for that you should be paid no more than your already exorbitant $1000/hour fee.

This is ambulance chasing at its finest. I certainly do not support His Muskiness in any way, but these scum need to be put down. Period.

Perish the thought that lawyer's fees should be based upon their costs.

You forget that lawyers are the people who get what you thought was coming to you.

ROFL.

The law schools are producing more scumbags to fleece you of your hard earned cash (unless you are named Trump who had a habit of stiffing anyone who he owes money too) than the market can bear.

That's why you end up with Judges who don't have a clue (Cannon) and 'I can fake being smart' Habba.

TFA leaves out the detail that these lawyers were working on a contingency basis, so not only did the lawyers front all the money for filings and not taking on other paying clients to devote time to this case, but if they would have lost they would have gotten nothing. It's a common arrangement in these situations for the lawyers to get something like 60% of the award for their client. So, in this particular case, it's not quite as bad as it seems at first blush.

"The first thing we do..."

If find a nice big wall, a supply of blindfolds and a big sign saying 'Lawyers Wanted'.

Some time ago, after our start-up was taken over by a large TLA conglomerate, their board decided to reclaim their spending on us for 'due diligence' reasons. Although they had done their due diligence, they claimed we had not included all possible liabilities and so employed <> London lawyers, in an attempt to intimidate with big words.

In response, we hired an (at the time) eye-wateringly expensive brief to make our defence. He duly wiped the floor with them and the claim was rescinded; except that they had made an announcement to the Stock Exchange and couldn't now correct it without losing face. In the end, we each agreed to pay a small amount in order for them to maintain their aura of competence.

Having just bought out a successful, forward-looking company, it was a stupid move and they lost any good-will we brought to the joint venture.