From Courtroom to Collaboration: A Strategic Analysis of the JPMorgan v. Tesla Legal Saga and the Politics of Modern Corporate Power

From Courtroom to Collaboration: A Strategic Analysis of the JPMorgan v. Tesla Legal Saga

Executive Summary

The high-profile legal battle between JPMorgan Chase, a pillar of traditional finance, and Tesla, a titan of technological disruption, culminated not in a courtroom verdict but in a surprising and strategically significant public reconciliation. What began as a $162.2 million lawsuit over the arcane terms of stock warrants, triggered by a single, now-infamous tweet from Elon Musk, evolved into a multi-year saga that tested the boundaries of contract law, corporate communications, and reputational warfare. In November 2024, the dispute was quietly dismissed, followed shortly by a remarkable public display of rapprochement between CEOs Jamie Dimon and Elon Musk. This report provides an exhaustive analysis of the conflict's origins, its legal and tactical escalation, and the multifaceted calculus behind its resolution. The findings indicate that the outcome was not merely a legal settlement but a strategic capitulation by JPMorgan. This retreat was driven by a confluence of three critical factors: the meteoric rise of Tesla's corporate and financial leverage, a seismic shift in the U.S. political and regulatory landscape following the 2024 election, and a pragmatic calculation by JPMorgan's leadership that the potential value of a future partnership with the Musk empire far outweighed the value of a contentious legal claim. The case serves as a definitive study on the evolving nature of corporate power, where social media influence and political alignment can prove as decisive as legal precedent.

I. The Genesis of Conflict: A Tale of Warrants and Volatility

The roots of the legal clash between JPMorgan Chase and Tesla extend back to 2014, long before the tweet that would ultimately ignite the dispute. The conflict originated in the complex, and at times ambiguous, language of standard financial instruments that were ill-equipped for the unprecedented volatility of a company like Tesla.

Deconstruction of the 2014 Stock Warrant Agreements

In February and March of 2014, Tesla sold a series of stock warrants to JPMorgan as part of a larger capital markets transaction.¹ This was not an unusual arrangement; the transaction was designed to benefit Tesla by mitigating potential stock dilution from a separate convertible bond sale while also allowing the automaker to claim certain federal income tax deductions.²

The warrants granted JPMorgan the right, but not the obligation, to purchase shares of Tesla stock at a predetermined "strike price"—initially set at a pre-split price of $560.6388—at any point during an exercise period in June and July of 2021.¹ If Tesla's stock was trading above this strike price when the warrants expired, the bank would profit from the difference, which Tesla was obligated to pay in either cash or shares.¹ The entire transaction was governed by standard legal frameworks, including a 2002 ISDA (International Swaps and Derivatives Association) Master Agreement and specific confirmations for the warrants, underscoring the formal, institutional nature of the deal.¹

The Role of JPMorgan as Calculation Agent

A critical and ultimately contentious element of the agreement was the designation of JPMorgan as the "Calculation Agent".² This role granted the bank broad discretionary power to adjust the terms of the warrants, including the all-important strike price, in response to "significant corporate transactions" or other events that could materially affect the warrants' value.² The contract stipulated that any such adjustments must be made "in good faith and in a commercially reasonable manner".¹ This subjective standard, while common in such agreements, created a legal gray area that would become the central battleground of the lawsuit. What JPMorgan would later defend as a "commercially reasonable" adjustment, Tesla would attack as an opportunistic and bad-faith maneuver.

The Latent Risk: Contractual Ambiguity in an Unpredictable Market

The core of the dispute can be traced to the inherent friction between a standardized financial contract designed for a world of predictable corporate actions and a company defined by its unpredictability. The warrant agreements contained language anticipating events like a "Merger Event or Tender Offer".¹ However, the contract was not explicitly designed to handle a novel event like a CEO's impulsive tweet about a potential take-private deal—a deal that was never formally proposed to the board and which the CEO later claimed was made in his "personal capacity".¹ This mismatch between the formal language of the contract and the chaotic reality of 21st-century corporate communication created the tinderbox for the legal war that followed.

Table 1: Comprehensive Timeline of Key Events

Date	Legal/Corporate Event	Public Statement/Action	Tesla Context (Performance/Stock)	Political/Regulatory Context
Feb/Mar 2014	Tesla sells stock warrants to JPMorgan.⁵	-	Tesla is a growing but still niche automaker.	-
Aug 7, 2018	Musk's pivotal tweet.⁶	"Am considering taking Tesla private at $420. Funding secured."	Stock surges 11%.⁷	-
Aug 24, 2018	Musk abandons take-private plan.⁴	Musk posts blog explaining decision.	Stock price experiences further volatility.	-
Sept 2018	SEC charges Musk with securities fraud.⁸	Musk and Tesla settle for $40M total fine and "Twitter sitter" rule.⁹	-	SEC demonstrates willingness to police Musk's communications.
2020-2021	Period of massive growth for Tesla.	-	Stock price increases tenfold by July 2021.⁴	-
Nov 2021	JPMorgan files $162.2M lawsuit against Tesla.⁵	JPM: Tesla "flagrantly" breached contract.¹¹	Tesla's market cap exceeds $1 trillion.¹²	Biden administration's SEC pursues more aggressive enforcement.¹³
Nov 22, 2021	Musk responds to lawsuit.¹⁴	"If JPM doesn't withdraw their lawsuit, I will give them a one-star review on Yelp. This is my final warning!"	Musk's fans "review bomb" JPM's Yelp page.¹⁴	-
Feb 3, 2023	Jury finds Musk not liable in separate shareholder fraud trial over the tweet.⁹	Musk: "Thank goodness, the wisdom of the people has prevailed!"	-	Legal precedent suggests difficulty in proving fraud from the tweet.
Jan 2023	Tesla files countersuit against JPMorgan.⁵	Tesla accuses JPM of seeking an illegitimate "windfall".¹¹	Tesla deliveries for 2022 exceeded 1.31 million vehicles.¹⁷	-
Sept 2024	Judge denies JPMorgan's motion for pre-trial judgment.¹⁸	-	-	Ruling increases likelihood of a public, messy trial for JPM.
Nov 29, 2024	Lawsuit and countersuit are voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.⁴	JPM spokesperson: The firms will "enter into a new commercial relationship".³	-	Follows Trump's victory in the 2024 U.S. presidential election.
Jan 2025	Public reconciliation at Davos.⁸	Dimon: "Elon and I hugged it out... The guy is our Einstein".²⁰	-	Musk is a top ally of the new administration, tapped to lead the Dept. of Government Efficiency (DOGE).⁸
Q1 2025	JPMorgan increases its investment in Tesla.²²	JPM increases its stake by 9.5%, holding shares worth ~$13.7B.²²	JPM becomes Tesla's 7th-largest institutional holder.²²	Trump administration signals a shift toward deregulation.²³

II. "Funding Secured": The Tweet That Ignited a Legal War

On August 7, 2018, a single post on social media by Elon Musk set in motion a chain of events that would lead to regulatory action, shareholder lawsuits, and ultimately, a high-stakes legal battle with one of the world's largest banks. The tweet was the catalyst that activated the latent risks within the 2014 warrant agreements.

Anatomy of the August 7, 2018 Tweet and Its Aftermath

The message was brief and explosive: "Am considering taking Tesla private at $420. Funding secured".⁶ The statement sent shockwaves through financial markets. The "$420" price was interpreted by many as an inside joke, but the assertion that "funding secured" was a material claim with profound legal consequences.⁶ This claim triggered an immediate 11% surge in Tesla's stock price as the market scrambled to price in the likelihood of a buyout.⁷

Musk later attempted to justify the statement by citing discussions with the Saudi Arabian sovereign wealth fund, claiming he had received a verbal commitment for the deal.⁷ However, this was subsequently disputed, and no formal proposal was ever made. Just 17 days after the initial tweet, on August 24, Musk abandoned the plan, creating a second wave of intense volatility in Tesla's stock.⁴

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) moved swiftly, charging Musk with securities fraud. The case was settled in September 2018, with Musk and Tesla each paying a $20 million fine. The settlement also established the now-famous "Twitter sitter" rule, which mandated that a Tesla lawyer pre-approve certain of Musk's tweets containing material information about the company.⁴ This regulatory action established a clear record of the SEC viewing the "funding secured" tweet as a misleading statement that harmed investors, a fact that would loom over all subsequent litigation.

JPMorgan's Contractual Response: The Rationale and Mechanics of Repricing

JPMorgan's legal team interpreted Musk's tweet as precisely the kind of "significant corporate transaction" that the warrant agreements were designed to address.² Acting in its capacity as Calculation Agent, the bank contended that it was not only entitled but contractually obligated to adjust the warrant strike price to account for the tweet's economic impact.²

The bank's actions were twofold. After the initial tweet, JPMorgan adjusted the strike price downward. Its rationale was that the announcement of a potential take-private deal reduced the stock's future volatility, thereby decreasing the value of the warrants, which necessitated a lower strike price to "maintain the same fair market value".² When Musk abandoned the plan 17 days later, the bank adjusted the strike price back up, though not to its original level.³ While this repricing was, on its face, a defensible action under the broad discretionary powers granted to the Calculation Agent, it also set the stage for a legal challenge. The decision opened the bank to accusations of opportunism, particularly as reports later suggested that other financial institutions with similar warrant agreements did not make such drastic adjustments.²⁶ This move transformed a standard hedging instrument into a high-stakes legal gamble.

III. The Legal Battlefield: Claims, Counterclaims, and Corporate Posturing

The dispute simmered for over three years before finally erupting into open legal warfare in November 2021. The ensuing battle was fought not only with legal briefs in a Manhattan courthouse but also with unconventional tactics in the court of public opinion.

JPMorgan's Breach of Contract Lawsuit (November 2021)

By the time the warrants expired in the summer of 2021, Tesla's stock had experienced a meteoric rise, increasing roughly tenfold from its 2018 levels.⁴ This massive appreciation meant that the difference between the original strike price and JPMorgan's adjusted strike price was now worth a significant sum. When Tesla refused to honor the adjusted price and deliver the corresponding shares or cash, JPMorgan filed suit in federal court in Manhattan.⁵ The bank sought $162.2 million in damages, accusing Tesla of "flagrantly" breaching its contractual obligations.² JPMorgan's position was straightforward: it had acted within its contractual rights as Calculation Agent, and Tesla had simply refused to pay what it owed.²

Tesla's "Windfall" Countersuit (January 2023)

Tesla's response, filed in January 2023, was not merely defensive but aggressively offensive. The company filed a countersuit that reframed the entire narrative.³ Tesla accused JPMorgan of engaging in "cynical litigation" and making an "opportunistic" and "unreasonably swift" adjustment to the warrants in a bad-faith attempt to secure an illegitimate "windfall".⁶ This legal strategy painted JPMorgan not as an aggrieved party seeking to enforce a contract, but as a predatory financial institution that had inappropriately exploited the market chaos created by Musk's tweet for its own gain.⁶

Table 2: Summary of Legal Claims and Counterclaims

JPMorgan's Claims (Plaintiff)	Tesla's Counterclaims (Defendant)
Breach of Contract: Tesla failed to deliver shares/cash as required by the warrant agreements upon their expiration.²	Bad-Faith Breach: JPMorgan's adjustments were not made in good faith and violated the spirit of the agreement.⁶
Right to Adjust Strike Price: As the designated "Calculation Agent," JPM had broad discretion to adjust the strike price in response to significant events to maintain fair market value.¹	Seeking an Illegitimate "Windfall": The bank's actions were not about maintaining value but about engineering an unfair profit from the volatility.³
"Commercially Reasonable" Action: The adjustments made were appropriate, contractually required, and met the standard of being made in good faith.¹	Opportunistic and Unreasonable Repricing: The adjustments were "unreasonably swift" and an inappropriate exploitation of Musk's tweet.⁶
Damages Owed: Tesla owed JPMorgan $162.2 million, representing the value difference created by the adjusted strike price.⁵	"Cynical Litigation": JPMorgan's lawsuit was a cynical attempt to profit from a situation it had manipulated.⁶

The War of Influence: Musk's Unconventional Tactics

In a move that exemplified his unique approach to corporate conflict, Elon Musk escalated the dispute beyond the courtroom. In November 2021, he issued a public threat not through a legal filing, but in a statement to the press: "If JPM doesn't withdraw their lawsuit, I will give them a one-star review on Yelp. This is my final warning!".¹⁴

While seemingly flippant, this was a calculated act of asymmetric warfare. Musk leveraged an asset that JPMorgan could not match: a massive and fiercely loyal social media following. His supporters immediately mobilized, flooding JPMorgan's Yelp page with one-star reviews and comments like "That's what you get for playing with Elon".¹⁴ The "review bombing" was so intense that it temporarily crashed the bank's rating and forced Yelp to disable new reviews for the page.⁶ This maneuver demonstrated a new paradigm in corporate disputes. Musk showed he could inflict immediate, tangible, and unpredictable reputational damage on a blue-chip financial institution, a risk not typically factored into traditional litigation strategy. JPMorgan was prepared for a legal fight, but it was unprepared for a public relations insurgency, fundamentally altering the cost-benefit analysis of pursuing the lawsuit.

IV. An Unexpected Détente: From Litigation to Collaboration

After three years of public animosity and legal maneuvering, the war between JPMorgan and Tesla ended as abruptly as it began. The resolution was not a court-ordered judgment but a quiet dismissal, followed by a surprisingly warm and public reconciliation that signaled a profound strategic shift by both parties.

The November 2024 Settlement

On November 29, 2024, the companies filed a succinct, one-page document in Manhattan federal court announcing a "voluntary dismissal with prejudice".³ The legal term "with prejudice" is critical, as it means that neither JPMorgan nor Tesla can ever refile the same claims against each other, bringing the matter to a final and irrevocable close.³

Crucially, the filing disclosed no financial terms of the settlement.⁴ This silence is telling. It strongly suggests that the resolution was not a simple transaction where one party paid the other to drop the case. Instead, it pointed toward a more complex strategic reset, a conclusion reinforced by the public statements that followed.

The Davos Reconciliation: Dimon's "Einstein" Proclamation

The private settlement was followed by a very public peacemaking ceremony in January 2025 at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland—a stage for the global elite.⁸ In an interview with CNBC, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon executed a masterclass in de-escalation and strategic repositioning. He declared, "Elon and I hugged it out," adding, "He came to one of our conferences. He and I had a nice, long chat. We settled some of our differences".⁸

Dimon went far beyond simply announcing a truce. He offered effusive praise for his former adversary, lauding Musk's achievements at Tesla, SpaceX, and Neuralink and famously calling him "our Einstein".²⁰ This was a deliberate reframing of Musk from a reckless litigant to a generational genius. Dimon then extended a clear and public olive branch, stating, "I'd like to be helpful to him and his companies as much as we can".⁸

The New "Commercial Relationship"

The public reconciliation gave context to a statement made by a JPMorgan spokesperson at the time of the settlement in November. The bank had announced, "JPMorgan and Tesla have decided to enter into a new commercial relationship and settle the outstanding disputes between the companies. This is a good outcome for all and we look forward to working together".³ Dimon's performance at Davos was the public consummation of this new relationship. The message was unmistakable: the fight was over, and a new era of partnership was beginning. This public narrative was as strategic as the lawsuit itself, designed to signal to the market, to competitors, and to Washington that JPMorgan was a forward-looking partner to innovation, not a litigious obstacle.

V. The Strategic Calculus: Analyzing the "Why" Behind the Truce

The abrupt and amicable end to such a contentious lawsuit was not an accident. It was the result of a cold, rational calculation by JPMorgan's leadership, driven by a dramatic shift in the balance of power and a confluence of business, political, and legal factors that made continuing the fight untenable.

The Tesla Factor: Unpacking Corporate Performance and Leverage

The single most important change between the 2018 tweet and the 2024 settlement was Tesla's transformation from a volatile, high-growth company into a global industrial behemoth. In 2018, a $162.2 million lawsuit was a significant threat. By 2024, it was a nuisance.

Tesla's growth during this period was staggering. Annual vehicle deliveries surged from just under 500,000 in 2020 to over 1.31 million in 2022.¹⁷ Annual revenue exploded from $31.5 billion in 2020 to $81.4 billion in 2022.³² In October 2021, just before JPMorgan filed its suit, Tesla's market capitalization surpassed $1 trillion, placing it in an elite club of global companies.¹² This phenomenal growth fundamentally altered the litigation's power dynamic. Tesla now possessed the financial resources to fight a protracted legal war indefinitely, effectively neutralizing JPMorgan's financial leverage. The potential reward of $162.2 million for JPMorgan began to look increasingly paltry compared to the escalating costs and risks of the lawsuit.¹⁰

Table 3: Tesla Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) at Critical Junctures

Metric	Aug 2018 (Tweet)	Nov 2021 (JPM Lawsuit)	Nov 2024 (Settlement)
Annual Deliveries	245,491 (FY 2018)³²	936,222 (FY 2021)³⁴	1,789,226 (FY 2024)³²
Annual Revenue	$21.46B (FY 2018)³²	$53.82B (FY 2021)³²	$97.7B (FY 2024)³³
Market Capitalization	Approx. $60B	Exceeded $1 Trillion¹²	Approx. $1.1 Trillion (May 2025)²²
Stock Performance	Surged on tweet	Approaching all-time highs	Recovered after a slump, showing resilience³⁵

The Political Chessboard: Regulatory Shifts and Geopolitical Winds

The outcome of the November 2024 U.S. presidential election appears to have been a decisive catalyst for the settlement. JPMorgan filed its lawsuit in November 2021, at a time when the Biden administration's SEC was pursuing a more aggressive enforcement agenda, particularly toward high-profile figures like Musk and emerging sectors like cryptocurrency.¹³ This regulatory environment may have emboldened the bank's legal strategy.

The election of Donald Trump in 2024, however, signaled a dramatic reversal. The new administration was widely expected to pursue a deregulatory agenda, rolling back Biden-era rules and adopting a less confrontational enforcement posture.²³ More importantly, Elon Musk emerged from the election as a top ally of the new president, tapped to lead a newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).⁸

This development transformed Musk from a powerful CEO into a politically-connected government insider. For JPMorgan, the calculus shifted overnight. Continuing to sue a key figure in the new administration became politically toxic. The risk of alienating the White House and facing potential political or regulatory blowback far outweighed the potential gain from the lawsuit. The settlement was, therefore, a politically astute maneuver to neutralize a dangerous liability and align the bank with the new locus of power in Washington.

The Dimon Doctrine: A Pragmatic Pivot by Wall Street's Old Guard

Ultimately, the decision to drop the lawsuit reflects the pragmatic business philosophy of Jamie Dimon. The legal risks for JPMorgan were mounting. A September 2024 court ruling had denied the bank's motion for a pre-trial judgment, meaning a costly, distracting, and potentially embarrassing public trial was becoming increasingly likely.¹⁸

Weighing this against the potential reward, the decision became clear. The opportunity cost of continuing the fight was immense. The potential future value of a comprehensive banking relationship with the entire Musk empire—spanning Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink, and X—is worth orders of magnitude more than the $162.2 million in dispute. This includes lucrative opportunities in investment banking, corporate financing, wealth management for thousands of employees, and deal-making services.⁴⁰ Dropping the lawsuit was not an admission of legal weakness; it was a strategic investment. By forgoing a contentious $162 million claim, JPMorgan purchased a ticket to participate in potentially billions of dollars of future business. Dimon's "hugged it out" tour was the public sealing of this new, far more valuable, deal.

VI. The New Commercial Relationship: A Forward-Looking Assessment

The settlement was not just an end to hostilities but the explicit beginning of a renewed partnership. This "new commercial relationship" is already manifesting in tangible financial commitments and points toward significant future collaboration, albeit with its own set of risks and strategic complexities.

Evidence of Collaboration: Analyzing JPMorgan's Increased Stake in Tesla

The most concrete evidence of the thaw is JPMorgan's investment activity. According to a 13F filing for the first quarter of 2025, J.P. Morgan Chase increased its holdings in Tesla by 9.5%, acquiring an additional 3.43 million shares. This brought its total stake to nearly 40 million shares, a position worth approximately $13.7 billion as of March 31, 2025.²² This significant capital commitment elevated the bank to become Tesla's seventh-largest institutional shareholder, a clear and powerful signal that it is betting on the automaker's future success.²² This action demonstrates that the reconciliation goes far beyond public pleasantries and represents a core strategic alignment.

Potential Avenues for Partnership

The renewed alliance opens numerous lucrative avenues for JPMorgan that were previously closed due to the acrimonious relationship:

Investment Banking and Capital Markets: For years, JPMorgan was largely shut out of Tesla's major capital raises and transactions, with Tesla favoring rivals like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.²⁶ With Tesla's ambitions in AI, robotics (Optimus), and autonomous transport (Robotaxi) requiring immense future funding, JPMorgan is now positioned to compete for lead underwriting roles on stock and debt offerings worth billions.
Consumer and Commercial Financing: JPMorgan's Chase consumer bank already offers auto financing for Tesla buyers, a program that can now be deepened and more prominently marketed.⁴⁴
Comprehensive Services for the Musk Empire: The reconciliation extends beyond Tesla. JPMorgan can now pursue a holistic banking relationship with Musk's entire portfolio of companies, including SpaceX and Neuralink, offering everything from treasury services and corporate financing to wealth management for Musk and his top executives.⁴⁰

Risks and Rewards of the Renewed Alliance

This strategic pivot carries both substantial rewards and inherent risks for JPMorgan. The primary reward is access to a high-growth, technologically dominant ecosystem of companies and the immense fees that accompany it. It also aligns the bank with a key figure in the new political establishment.

However, the risks are also significant. The primary risk is reputational, stemming from a closer association with a notoriously controversial and unpredictable CEO whose actions could create future liabilities.⁴⁰ Furthermore, a fascinating strategic bifurcation has emerged within JPMorgan itself. While its investment banking arm embraces Musk, its research division remains critical of Tesla's fundamentals. JPMorgan analysts have continued to issue "Underweight" ratings on Tesla stock and have published reports warning that policy changes under the Trump administration—such as the potential removal of federal EV tax credits—could slash Tesla's profits by as much as 40%.³⁵ This internal contradiction is not a sign of confusion but of a sophisticated strategy. It allows the bank to pursue the lucrative relationship-based business while its research arm provides objective, and at times bearish, analysis to its trading and asset management clients. This dual approach allows JPMorgan to profit from both the potential upside of the partnership and the downside volatility of the stock, insulating it from criticism while maximizing its financial opportunities.

VII. Precedents and Prescriptions: Key Takeaways for Corporate Leaders and Legal Counsel

The resolution of the JPMorgan v. Tesla dispute offers a powerful set of lessons for corporate and legal leaders navigating the modern landscape of business and law. It highlights the growing influence of social media, the politicization of corporate conflicts, and the need for a more dynamic and integrated approach to litigation strategy.

Navigating Contracts in the Age of Social Media Volatility: The case demonstrates that traditional legal contracts, with their reliance on subjective standards like "commercially reasonable," are vulnerable in the face of market-moving social media communications. Future agreements involving high-profile, media-savvy companies and executives must contain more explicit and objective language. Contracts should clearly define what constitutes a material public announcement in the digital age and establish clearer, less ambiguous mechanisms for valuation adjustments to avoid disputes centered on interpretation and intent.
Strategies for Litigating Against High-Profile, Unconventional Adversaries: JPMorgan's experience reveals the limits of a purely legalistic approach to conflict. Traditional litigation strategy is no longer sufficient when facing an adversary who can weaponize public opinion. Corporate legal departments must now integrate a robust public relations and reputational risk management strategy from the outset of any dispute. They must anticipate and prepare for attacks that occur outside the courtroom—on social media, in the press, and on consumer platforms—and develop agile response plans to counter them.
The Increasing Politicization of Corporate Disputes: The JPMorgan v. Tesla saga is a harbinger of a new reality: major corporate litigation involving politically-aligned figures will be inextricably linked to the political landscape. The final outcome of this case appears to have been determined less by the legal merits of a 2014 contract and more by the outcome of the 2024 U.S. presidential election. This means that for major corporations, political risk analysis is now as critical as legal risk analysis in shaping litigation strategy. The decision of when to fight, when to settle, and when to publicly reconcile has become a function of political calculus as much as legal merit, requiring corporate counsel to act as political strategists as well as legal experts.

Works cited

JPMorgan Chase Bank London Branch v. Tesla, Inc., 21 Civ. 9441 (PGG) | Casetext Search + Citator, accessed on June 20, 2025
Case 1:21-cv-09441-PGG Document 1 Filed 11/15/21 Page 1 of 19 - Courthouse News Service, accessed on June 20, 2025
JPMorgan drops suit against Tesla - Legal Dive, accessed on June 20, 2025
JPMorgan agrees to drop lawsuit against Tesla over stock warrants - The Economic Times, accessed on June 20, 2025
JPMorgan Settles Tesla Lawsuit Over Stock Warrants for $162 Million - FXLeaders, accessed on June 20, 2025
JPMorgan Drops $162 Million Lawsuit Over Musk's Infamous $420 ..., accessed on June 20, 2025
Musk Wins Tweet Trial - Seward & Kissel LLP, accessed on June 20, 2025
Gateway - Quartz, accessed on June 20, 2025
Elon Musk found not guilty in the Tesla 420 take-private case | Electrek, accessed on June 20, 2025
JP Morgan Drops Lawsuit Against Tesla: A Shift in Approach - AInvest, accessed on June 20, 2025
JPMorgan and Tesla settle legal battle over stock warrants: here's why - TradingView, accessed on June 20, 2025
Tesla Inc (TSLA) Stock Price & News - Google Finance, accessed on June 20, 2025
The Cost of Operating a Crypto Business: Key Takeaways from Biden-Era SEC Enforcement against the Sector - Merkle Science, accessed on June 20, 2025
Elon Musk vs. JPMorgan: A Lesson in Protecting Your Brand - Reputation, accessed on June 20, 2025
Elon Musk and Jamie Dimon Reportedly Don't Get Along - TheStreet, accessed on June 20, 2025
Jury Finds Musk Not Liable for Tesla 'Funding Secured' Tweet - Investopedia, accessed on June 20, 2025
Tesla Vehicle Production & Deliveries and Date for Financial Results & Webcast for Fourth Quarter 2022, accessed on June 20, 2025
JPMorgan Drops Suit Against Tesla Over Musk Tweet, Warrants - Claims Journal, accessed on June 20, 2025
JPMorgan ends lawsuit against Tesla over Musk's 2018 tweet- report - Investing.com, accessed on June 20, 2025
Jamie Dimon on Elon Musk: He's 'Our Einstein' - Newsweek, accessed on June 20, 2025
'This guy is our Einstein': Jamie Dimon says he and Elon Musk 'hugged it out' after dropping $162M Tesla lawsuit — vows to support the billionaire as much as he can. Here's how to tag along - Moneywise, accessed on June 20, 2025
JP Morgan Boosts Tesla Stake By 9.5% As EV Investments Surge, accessed on June 20, 2025
The Changing Tides of the SEC Under the Second Trump Administration, accessed on June 20, 2025
Big Changes are Already Underway at the SEC | The D&O Diary, accessed on June 20, 2025
Tesla CEO Elon Musk Says 'Funding Secured' Tweet Followed Meeting With Saudis - TT, accessed on June 20, 2025
Elon Musk Reportedly Threatened JPMorgan With a One-Star Yelp Review - Markets Insider, accessed on June 20, 2025
JP Morgan sues EV maker for $162 MN over warrants | Tesla | WION | World Business Watch - YouTube, accessed on June 20, 2025
JPMorgan and Tesla Settle Legal Dispute Over Musk's Market-Moving Tweet - AInvest, accessed on June 20, 2025
JPMorgan agrees to drop suit against Tesla over stock warrants, Bloomberg says - Nasdaq, accessed on June 20, 2025
JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon: 'I Hugged It Out' With Elon Musk | Entrepreneur, accessed on June 20, 2025
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has "hugged it out" with JP Morgan CEO - Teslarati, accessed on June 20, 2025
Tesla Sales, Revenue & Production Statistics (2025) - Backlinko, accessed on June 20, 2025
Tesla Sales, Revenue & Production Statistics (June 2025) - Tridens, accessed on June 20, 2025
Tesla Q4 2021 Vehicle Production & Deliveries, accessed on June 20, 2025
JPMorgan: Tesla's Profits Could Plunge 40% Under Trump - Wall Street Pit, accessed on June 20, 2025
Regulatory Litigation in the Biden Administration | Jones Day, accessed on June 20, 2025
How the U.S. election could impact the financials sector | T. Rowe Price, accessed on June 20, 2025
How the 2024 US Election Will Impact the Banking Industry: Short- and Long-Term Perspectives - MRINetwork, accessed on June 20, 2025
J.P. Morgan drops $162M lawsuit against Tesla stock deal - Profit by Pakistan Today, accessed on June 20, 2025
Jamie Dimon (JPM) Lauds Elon Musk Amid JPMorgan-Tesla (TSLA ..., accessed on June 20, 2025
Jpmorgan Chase & Co ownership in TSLA / Tesla, Inc. - 13F, 13D, 13G Filings - Fintel.io, accessed on June 20, 2025
Tesla's Elon Musk responds to JPMorgan suit with “final warning” -- for a 1-Star Yelp review, accessed on June 20, 2025
Musk issues 'final warning' to JPMorgan - Khmer Times, accessed on June 20, 2025
How to Finance a Tesla Through Chase, accessed on June 20, 2025
JPMorgan Cuts Tesla Profit Estimates on 'Unprecedented Brand Damage' - Investopedia, accessed on June 20, 2025
Tesla Faces Potential 52% Earnings Hit From Trump Tax Bill, JPMorgan Warns, accessed on June 20, 2025
Despite rally in Tesla stock, US election could risk ~40% of profits: JPMorgan - Investing.com, accessed on June 20, 2025