Tom Hals

WILMINGTON (Reuters) – Tesla Inc shareholders asked a judge Tuesday to determine whether Elon Musk had coerced its board to sign a SolarCity 2016 agreement. They also requested that Musk’s chief executive be required to pay $13 Billion to the electric car company.

Randy Baron, an attorney on behalf of shareholders at the end of closing arguments, stated, “This case had always been about whether or not the acquisition of SolarCity a rescue from economic distress, a bailout orchestrated by Elon Musk.”

In the closing arguments, Musk recited key points from the July trial that lasted 10 days. Musk was there for two days to defend the agreement.

Union pension funds and asset managers sued Musk, alleging that he influenced the Tesla board in order to approve the SolarCity cash-strapped deal. Musk was also the biggest shareholder.

Musk countered, claiming that the deal is part of a 10-year-old masterplan to create a vertically connected company that would transform energy consumption and production with SolarCity roof panels and Tesla cars and batteries.

Evan Chesler was one of the Musk lawyers who testified at the hearing. He said that this deal wasn’t a bailout, SolarCity was insolvent but it had a lot of financial resources.

Chesler stated that SolarCity was creating “billions of dollars” of long-term value.

In 2016, the all-stock deal was worth $2.6 billion. However, Telsa stock prices have soared since then.

Lee Rudy, a shareholder attorney, asked Vice-Chancellor Joseph Slights of Delaware’s Court of Chancery for Musk to return Tesla stock that he had received. This would have a value of around $13 Billion at the current price.

Musk stated in court papers that such an award would at minimum five times be the highest award in any comparable shareholder lawsuit. He called it a “windfall for plaintiffs.”

Rudy suggested that Slights consider Musk’s disdain for the trial and deposition process in which he frequently clashed and insulted shareholders attorneys.

Rudy declared that Elon Musk could make a fortune if he was allowed to retain shares he shouldn’t have.

Chesler said that Musk’s request for Musk to give back the stock was “preposterous”, and claimed it had ignored Tesla’s five-year record of success.

Tesla shares were flat at $1,049.

Telsa purchased SolarCity when the electric vehicle manufacturer was nearing the launch of its Model 3 sedan, which was crucial to the strategy. According to shareholders, the acquisition was unnecessary and caused Tesla financial distress and increased debt.

Musk, despite holding only 22% in Tesla’s stock, is claimed by shareholders to be the controlling shareholder because of his connections to members of board and domineering manner. The court is more likely to conclude that the shareholders were unfairly treated if plaintiffs prove it.

Musk repeatedly stated to the court that SolarCity was handled primarily by the Tesla board and that he had withdrawn from any price negotiations.

Musk repeatedly claimed that the SolarCity agreement had to be quickly acquired, or the company needed financing in order to address its cash crisis.

Slights stated last week that he plans to retire within the next few months. A related shareholder lawsuit against Musk’s record-setting pay package was also transferred by Slights from another judge.

(Refiles for correction of typo in headline