The Tesla Inc. shareholder who won a court order in Delaware killing co-founder Elon Musk’s US$56 billion pay package is premature in asking the judge to bar the billionaire from moving the executive-compensation dispute to Texas, the car company’s lawyers argue.

Tesla investor Richard Tornetta is raising false alarms about the company’s proxy asking shareholders to support reincorporating the electric-vehicle maker in Texas and reinstate Musk’s voided pay, John Reed, one of Tesla’s attorneys, said in a Delaware Chancery Court filing Thursday.

Musk has been threatening to move Tesla’s corporate home from Delaware to Texas after Judge Kathaleen St. J. McCormick in January rescinded his pay package over director conflicts and Tesla’s failure to properly disclose the plan’s details. Tornetta wants McCormick to issue an order barring Musk from litigating the pay issue anywhere other than Delaware.

“There are no pending or threatened actions in Texas or anywhere else” aimed at re-litigating the pay suit and Musk has done nothing that would interfere with McCormick issuing a final judgment in the case, Reed said in a letter to the judge.

Greg Varallo, one of Tornetta’s lawyers, didn’t immediately respond to an email seeking comment on Musk’s response to his request to keep the case in Delaware.

It’s unclear what impact an order from McCormick retaining the dispute in Delaware would have on the case. If Tesla reincorporates in Texas and its board approves Musk’s pay there, that would presumably have to be challenged in a new lawsuit under Texas law.

McCormick has set a July 8 hearing to review a request by Tornetta’s lawyers for attorney fees and issue a final order in the case. The investor’s lawyers want the judge to rule on their injunction request before Tesla’s June 13 annual meeting, when the proxy vote is due to take place.

  - Bloomberg