Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2020
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 12 – Commitments and Contingencies Operating Lease Arrangement in Buffalo, New York We have an operating lease through the Research Foundation for the State University of New York (the “SUNY Foundation”) for a manufacturing facility constructed on behalf of the SUNY Foundation and which was substantially completed in April 2018. We use this facility, referred to as Gigafactory New York, primarily for the development and production of our Solar Roof and other solar products and components, energy storage components, and Supercharger components, and for other lessor-approved functions. Under the lease and a related research and development agreement, on behalf of the SUNY Foundation, we have and will continue to install certain utilities and other improvements and acquire certain equipment designated by us to be used in the manufacturing facility. Under the terms of the operating lease arrangement, we are required to achieve specific operational milestones during the initial lease term; which include employing a certain number of employees at the manufacturing facility, within western New York and within the State of New York within specified periods following the completion of the manufacturing facility. We are also required to spend or incur $5.00 billion in combined capital, operational expenses and other costs in the State of New York within 10 years following the achievement of full production. On an annual basis during the initial lease term, as measured on each anniversary of the commissioning of the manufacturing facility, if we fail to meet these specified investment and job creation requirements, then we would be obligated to pay a $41 million “program payment” to the SUNY Foundation for each year that we fail to meet these requirements. Furthermore, if the arrangement is terminated due to a material breach by us, then additional amounts might become payable by us. In April 2020, the government agency overseeing our agreement with the SUNY Foundation for the construction and use of Gigafactory New York issued guidance that all obligations relating to investment and employment targets under certain of its projects, including our obligation to be compliant with our applicable targets under such agreement on April 30, 2020, may be deferred for a one year period upon such agency’s approval of an application for relief by the obligor. As we temporarily suspended most of our manufacturing operations at Gigafactory New York pursuant to a New York State executive order issued in March 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, we intend to apply for and expect to be granted such deferral. Moreover, as we had exceeded our investment and employment obligations under this agreement prior to such mandated reduction of operations, we do not currently expect any issues meeting all applicable future obligations under this agreement. However, if our expectations as to the costs and timelines of our investment and operations at Buffalo or our production ramp of the Solar Roof prove incorrect, we may incur additional expenses or substantial payments to the SUNY Foundation. Operating Lease Arrangement in Shanghai, China We have an operating lease arrangement for an initial term of 50 years with the local government of Shanghai for land use rights where we are constructing Gigafactory Shanghai. Under the terms of the arrangement, we are required to spend RMB 14.08 billion in capital expenditures, and to generate RMB 2.23 billion of annual tax revenues starting at the end of 2023. If we are unwilling or unable to meet such target or obtain periodic project approvals, in accordance with the Chinese government’s standard terms for such arrangements, we would be required to revert the site to the local government and receive compensation for the remaining value of the land lease, buildings and fixtures. We believe the capital expenditure requirement and the tax revenue target will be attainable even if our actual vehicle production was far lower than the volumes we are forecasting. Legal Proceedings Securities Litigation Relating to the SolarCity Acquisition Between September 1, 2016 and October 5, 2016, seven lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery by purported stockholders of Tesla challenging our acquisition of SolarCity. Following consolidation, the lawsuit names as defendants the members of Tesla’s board of directors as then constituted and alleges, among other things, that board members breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the acquisition. The complaint asserts both derivative claims and direct claims on behalf of a purported class and seeks, among other relief, unspecified monetary damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. On January 27, 2017, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the operative complaint. Rather than respond to the defendants’ motion, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On March 17, 2017, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On December 13, 2017, the Court heard oral argument on the motion. On March 28, 2018, the Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss. Defendants filed a request for interlocutory appeal, but the Delaware Supreme Court denied that request without ruling on the merits but electing not to hear an appeal at this early stage of the case. Defendants filed their answer on May 18, 2018, and mediations were held on June 10, 2019. Plaintiffs and defendants filed respective motions for summary judgment on August 25, 2019, and further mediations were held on October 3, 2019. The Court held a hearing on the motions for summary judgment on November 4, 2019. On January 22, 2020, all of the director defendants except Elon Musk reached a tentative settlement to resolve the lawsuit against them for an amount that would be paid entirely under the applicable insurance policy. The settlement does not involve an admission of any wrongdoing by any party. Tesla will receive such amount, which would be recognized as a gain in its financial statements, if the settlement is finally approved by the Court. On February 4, 2020, the Court issued a ruling that denied plaintiffs’ previously-filed motion and granted in part and denied in part defendants’ previously-filed motion. Fact and expert discovery is complete, and the case was set for trial in March 2020 until it was postponed by the Court due to safety precautions concerning COVID-19. The Court set tentative new dates for the trial from July 27 to August 7, 2020, subject to change based on any further COVID-19 related measures implemented. These plaintiffs and others filed parallel actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on or about April 21, 2017. They include claims for violations of the federal securities laws and breach of fiduciary duties by Tesla’s board of directors. Those actions have been consolidated and stayed pending the above-referenced Chancery Court litigation. We believe that claims challenging the SolarCity acquisition are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously. We are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with these claims. Securities Litigation Relating to Production of Model 3 Vehicles On October 10, 2017, a purported stockholder class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Tesla, two of its current officers, and a former officer. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Tesla securities from May 4, 2016 to October 6, 2017. The lawsuit claims that Tesla supposedly made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s preparedness to produce Model 3 vehicles. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 23, 2018, and defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 25, 2018. The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on September 28, 2018, and defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February 15, 2019. The hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on March 22, 2019, and on March 25, 2019, the Court ruled in favor of defendants and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. On April 8, 2019, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and on July 17, 2019 filed their opening brief. We filed our opposition on September 16, 2019. A hearing on the appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (“Ninth Circuit”) is set for April 30, 2020. We continue to believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend against this lawsuit vigorously. We are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit. On October 26, 2018, in a similar action, a purported stockholder class action was filed in the Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County against Tesla, Elon Musk and seven initial purchasers in an offering of debt securities by Tesla in August 2017. The complaint alleges misrepresentations made by Tesla regarding the number of Model 3 vehicles Tesla expected to produce by the end of 2017 in connection with such offering and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Tesla securities in such offering. Tesla thereafter removed the case to federal court. On January 22, 2019, plaintiff abandoned its effort to proceed in state court, instead filing an amended complaint against Tesla, Elon Musk and seven initial purchasers in the debt offering before the same judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California who is hearing the above-referenced earlier filed federal case. On February 5, 2019, the Court stayed this new case pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss the complaint in such earlier filed federal case. After such earlier filed federal case was dismissed, defendants filed a motion on July 2, 2019 to dismiss this case as well. This case is now stayed pending a ruling from the appellate court on such earlier filed federal case with an agreement that if defendants prevail on appeal in such case, this case will be dismissed. We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend against this lawsuit vigorously. We are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit. Litigation Relating to 2018 CEO Performance Award On June 4, 2018, a purported Tesla stockholder filed a putative class and derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Elon Musk and the members of Tesla’s board of directors as then constituted, alleging corporate waste, unjust enrichment, and that such board members breached their fiduciary duties by approving the stock-based compensation plan. The complaint seeks, among other things, monetary damages and rescission or reformation of the stock-based compensation plan. On August 31, 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint; plaintiff filed its opposition brief on November 1, 2018 and defendants filed a reply brief on December 13, 2018. The hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on May 9, 2019. On September 20, 2019, the Court granted the motion to dismiss as to the corporate waste claim but denied the motion as to the breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims. Our answer was filed on December 3, 2019, and trial is set for June 2021. We believe the claims asserted in this lawsuit are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously. Securities Litigation Relating to Potential Going Private Transaction Between August 10, 2018 and September 6, 2018, nine purported stockholder class actions were filed against Tesla and Elon Musk in connection with Elon Musk’s August 7, 2018 Twitter post that he was considering taking Tesla private. All of the suits are now pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Although the complaints vary in certain respects, they each purport to assert claims for violations of federal securities laws related to Mr. Musk’s statement and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Tesla’s securities. Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint on January 16, 2019 and added as defendants the members of Tesla’s board of directors. The now-consolidated purported stockholder class action was stayed while the issue of selection of lead counsel was briefed and argued before the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit ruled regarding lead counsel. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 22, 2019. The hearing on the motion was held on March 6, 2020. On April 15, 2020, the Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss. We believe that the claims have no merit and intend to defend against them vigorously. We are unable to estimate the potential loss, or range of loss, associated with these claims. Between October 17, 2018 and November 9, 2018, five derivative lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Mr. Musk and the members of Tesla’s board of directors as then constituted in relation to statements made and actions connected to a potential going private transaction. In addition to these cases, on October 25, 2018, another derivative lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Mr. Musk and the members of the Tesla board of directors as then constituted. The Courts in both the Delaware federal court and Delaware Court of Chancery actions have consolidated their respective actions and stayed each consolidated action pending resolution of the above-referenced consolidated purported stockholder class action. We believe that the claims have no merit and intend to defend against them vigorously. We are unable to estimate the potential loss or range of loss, if any, associated with these lawsuits. On March 7, 2019, various stockholders filed a derivative suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery, purportedly on behalf of the Company, naming Elon Musk and Tesla’s board of directors as then constituted, also related to Mr. Musk’s August 7, 2018 Twitter post that is the basis of the above-referenced consolidated purported stockholder class action as well as to Mr. Musk’s February 19, 2019 Twitter post regarding Tesla’s vehicle production. The suit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, unspecified damages, and other relief. Plaintiffs moved for expedited proceedings in connection with the declaratory and injunctive relief. Briefs were filed on March 13, 2019 and the hearing was held on March 18, 2019. Defendants prevailed, with the Court denying plaintiffs’ request for an expedited trial and granting defendants’ request to stay this action pending the outcome of the above-referenced consolidated purported stockholder class action. Certain Investigations and Other Matters We receive requests for information from regulators and governmental authorities, such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, the SEC, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and various state, federal, and international agencies. We routinely cooperate with such regulatory and governmental requests. In particular, the SEC had issued subpoenas to Tesla in connection with (a) Elon Musk’s prior statement that he was considering taking Tesla private and (b) certain projections that we made for Model 3 production rates during 2017 and other public statements relating to Model 3 production. The take-private investigation was resolved and closed with a settlement entered into with the SEC in September 2018 and as further clarified in April 2019 in an amendment. On December 4, 2019, the SEC (i) closed the investigation into the projections and other public statements regarding Model 3 production rates and (ii) issued a subpoena seeking information concerning certain financial data and contracts including Tesla’s regular financing arrangements. Separately, the DOJ had also asked us to voluntarily provide it with information about the above matters related to taking Tesla private and Model 3 production rates. Aside from the settlement, as amended, with the SEC relating to Mr. Musk’s statement that he was considering taking Tesla private, there have not been any developments in these matters that we deem to be material, and to our knowledge no government agency in any ongoing investigation has concluded that any wrongdoing occurred. As is our normal practice, we have been cooperating and will continue to cooperate with government authorities. We cannot predict the outcome or impact of any ongoing matters. Should the government decide to pursue an enforcement action, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our business, results of operation, prospects, cash flows, and financial position. We are also subject to various other legal proceedings and claims that arise from the normal course of business activities. If an unfavorable ruling or development were to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, prospects, cash flows, financial position, and brand. Indemnification and Guaranteed Returns We are contractually obligated to compensate certain fund investors for any losses that they may suffer in certain limited circumstances resulting from reductions in U.S. Treasury grants or investment tax credits (“ITC”s). Generally, such obligations would arise as a result of reductions to the value of the underlying solar energy systems as assessed by the U.S. Treasury Department for purposes of claiming U.S. Treasury grants or as assessed by the IRS for purposes of claiming ITCs or U.S. Treasury grants. For each balance sheet date, we assess and recognize, when applicable, a distribution payable for the potential exposure from this obligation based on all the information available at that time, including any guidelines issued by the U.S. Treasury Department on solar energy system valuations for purposes of claiming U.S. Treasury grants and any audits undertaken by the IRS. We believe that any payments to the fund investors in excess of the amounts already recognized by us for this obligation are not probable or material based on the facts known at the filing date. The maximum potential future payments that we could have to make under this obligation would depend on the difference between the fair values of the solar energy systems sold or transferred to the funds as determined by us and the values that the U.S. Treasury Department would determine as fair value for the systems for purposes of claiming U.S. Treasury grants or the values the IRS would determine as the fair value for the systems for purposes of claiming ITCs or U.S. Treasury grants. We claim U.S. Treasury grants based on guidelines provided by the U.S. Treasury department and the statutory regulations from the IRS. We use fair values determined with the assistance of independent third-party appraisals commissioned by us as the basis for determining the ITCs that are passed-through to and claimed by the fund investors. Since we cannot determine future revisions to U.S. Treasury Department guidelines governing solar energy system values or how the IRS will evaluate system values used in claiming ITCs or U.S. Treasury grants, we are unable to reliably estimate the maximum potential future payments that it could have to make under this obligation as of each balance sheet date. We are eligible to receive certain state and local incentives that are associated with renewable energy generation. The amount of incentives that can be claimed is based on the projected or actual solar energy system size and/or the amount of solar energy produced. We also currently participate in one state’s incentive program that is based on either the fair market value or the tax basis of solar energy systems placed in service. State and local incentives received are allocated between us and fund investors in accordance with the contractual provisions of each fund. We are not contractually obligated to indemnify any fund investor for any losses they may incur due to a shortfall in the amount of state or local incentives actually received. Our lease pass-through financing funds have a one-time lease payment reset mechanism that occurs after the installation of all solar energy systems in a fund. As a result of this mechanism, we may be required to refund master lease prepayments previously received from investors. Any refunds of master lease prepayments would reduce the lease pass-through financing obligation. Letters of Credit As of March 31, 2020, we had $272 million of unused letters of credit outstanding.

Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2020

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 12 – Commitments and Contingencies

Operating Lease Arrangement in Buffalo, New York

We have an operating lease through the Research Foundation for the State University of New York (the “SUNY Foundation”) for a manufacturing facility constructed on behalf of the SUNY Foundation and which was substantially completed in April 2018. We use this facility, referred to as Gigafactory New York, primarily for the development and production of our Solar Roof and other solar products and components, energy storage components, and Supercharger components, and for other lessor-approved functions. Under the lease and a related research and development agreement, on behalf of the SUNY Foundation, we have and will continue to install certain utilities and other improvements and acquire certain equipment designated by us to be used in the manufacturing facility.

Under the terms of the operating lease arrangement, we are required to achieve specific operational milestones during the initial lease term; which include employing a certain number of employees at the manufacturing facility, within western New York and within the State of New York within specified periods following the completion of the manufacturing facility. We are also required to spend or incur $5.00 billion in combined capital, operational expenses and other costs in the State of New York within 10 years following the achievement of full production. On an annual basis during the initial lease term, as measured on each anniversary of the commissioning of the manufacturing facility, if we fail to meet these specified investment and job creation requirements, then we would be obligated to pay a $41 million “program payment” to the SUNY Foundation for each year that we fail to meet these requirements. Furthermore, if the arrangement is terminated due to a material breach by us, then additional amounts might become payable by us.

In April 2020, the government agency overseeing our agreement with the SUNY Foundation for the construction and use of Gigafactory New York issued guidance that all obligations relating to investment and employment targets under certain of its projects, including our obligation to be compliant with our applicable targets under such agreement on April 30, 2020, may be deferred for a one year period upon such agency’s approval of an application for relief by the obligor. As we temporarily suspended most of our manufacturing operations at Gigafactory New York pursuant to a New York State executive order issued in March 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, we intend to apply for and expect to be granted such deferral. Moreover, as we had exceeded our investment and employment obligations under this agreement prior to such mandated reduction of operations, we do not currently expect any issues meeting all applicable future obligations under this agreement. However, if our expectations as to the costs and timelines of our investment and operations at Buffalo or our production ramp of the Solar Roof prove incorrect, we may incur additional expenses or substantial payments to the SUNY Foundation.

Operating Lease Arrangement in Shanghai, China

We have an operating lease arrangement for an initial term of 50 years with the local government of Shanghai for land use rights where we are constructing Gigafactory Shanghai. Under the terms of the arrangement, we are required to spend RMB 14.08 billion in capital expenditures, and to generate RMB 2.23 billion of annual tax revenues starting at the end of 2023. If we are unwilling or unable to meet such target or obtain periodic project approvals, in accordance with the Chinese government’s standard terms for such arrangements, we would be required to revert the site to the local government and receive compensation for the remaining value of the land lease, buildings and fixtures. We believe the capital expenditure requirement and the tax revenue target will be attainable even if our actual vehicle production was far lower than the volumes we are forecasting.

Legal Proceedings

Securities Litigation Relating to the SolarCity Acquisition

Between September 1, 2016 and October 5, 2016, seven lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery by purported stockholders of Tesla challenging our acquisition of SolarCity. Following consolidation, the lawsuit names as defendants the members of Tesla’s board of directors as then constituted and alleges, among other things, that board members breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the acquisition. The complaint asserts both derivative claims and direct claims on behalf of a purported class and seeks, among other relief, unspecified monetary damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. On January 27, 2017, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the operative complaint. Rather than respond to the defendants’ motion, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On March 17, 2017, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On December 13, 2017, the Court heard oral argument on the motion. On March 28, 2018, the Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss. Defendants filed a request for interlocutory appeal, but the Delaware Supreme Court denied that request without ruling on the merits but electing not to hear an appeal at this early stage of the case. Defendants filed their answer on May 18, 2018, and mediations were held on June 10, 2019. Plaintiffs and defendants filed respective motions for summary judgment on August 25, 2019, and further mediations were held on October 3, 2019. The Court held a hearing on the motions for summary judgment on November 4, 2019. On January 22, 2020, all of the director defendants except Elon Musk reached a tentative settlement to resolve the lawsuit against them for an amount that would be paid entirely under the applicable insurance policy. The settlement does not involve an admission of any wrongdoing by any party. Tesla will receive such amount, which would be recognized as a gain in its financial statements, if the settlement is finally approved by the Court. On February 4, 2020, the Court issued a ruling that denied plaintiffs’ previously-filed motion and granted in part and denied in part defendants’ previously-filed motion. Fact and expert discovery is complete, and the case was set for trial in March 2020 until it was postponed by the Court due to safety precautions concerning COVID-19. The Court set tentative new dates for the trial from July 27 to August 7, 2020, subject to change based on any further COVID-19 related measures implemented.

These plaintiffs and others filed parallel actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on or about April 21, 2017. They include claims for violations of the federal securities laws and breach of fiduciary duties by Tesla’s board of directors. Those actions have been consolidated and stayed pending the above-referenced Chancery Court litigation.

We believe that claims challenging the SolarCity acquisition are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously. We are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with these claims.

Securities Litigation Relating to Production of Model 3 Vehicles

On October 10, 2017, a purported stockholder class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Tesla, two of its current officers, and a former officer. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Tesla securities from May 4, 2016 to October 6, 2017. The lawsuit claims that Tesla supposedly made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s preparedness to produce Model 3 vehicles. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 23, 2018, and defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 25, 2018. The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on September 28, 2018, and defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February 15, 2019. The hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on March 22, 2019, and on March 25, 2019, the Court ruled in favor of defendants and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. On April 8, 2019, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and on July 17, 2019 filed their opening brief. We filed our opposition on September 16, 2019. A hearing on the appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (“Ninth Circuit”) is set for April 30, 2020. We continue to believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend against this lawsuit vigorously. We are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit.

On October 26, 2018, in a similar action, a purported stockholder class action was filed in the Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County against Tesla, Elon Musk and seven initial purchasers in an offering of debt securities by Tesla in August 2017. The complaint alleges misrepresentations made by Tesla regarding the number of Model 3 vehicles Tesla expected to produce by the end of 2017 in connection with such offering and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Tesla securities in such offering. Tesla thereafter removed the case to federal court. On January 22, 2019, plaintiff abandoned its effort to proceed in state court, instead filing an amended complaint against Tesla, Elon Musk and seven initial purchasers in the debt offering before the same judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California who is hearing the above-referenced earlier filed federal case. On February 5, 2019, the Court stayed this new case pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss the complaint in such earlier filed federal case. After such earlier filed federal case was dismissed, defendants filed a motion on July 2, 2019 to dismiss this case as well. This case is now stayed pending a ruling from the appellate court on such earlier filed federal case with an agreement that if defendants prevail on appeal in such case, this case will be dismissed. We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend against this lawsuit vigorously. We are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit.

Litigation Relating to 2018 CEO Performance Award

On June 4, 2018, a purported Tesla stockholder filed a putative class and derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Elon Musk and the members of Tesla’s board of directors as then constituted, alleging corporate waste, unjust enrichment, and that such board members breached their fiduciary duties by approving the stock-based compensation plan. The complaint seeks, among other things, monetary damages and rescission or reformation of the stock-based compensation plan. On August 31, 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint; plaintiff filed its opposition brief on November 1, 2018 and defendants filed a reply brief on December 13, 2018. The hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on May 9, 2019. On September 20, 2019, the Court granted the motion to dismiss as to the corporate waste claim but denied the motion as to the breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims. Our answer was filed on December 3, 2019, and trial is set for June 2021. We believe the claims asserted in this lawsuit are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously.

Securities Litigation Relating to Potential Going Private Transaction

Between August 10, 2018 and September 6, 2018, nine purported stockholder class actions were filed against Tesla and Elon Musk in connection with Elon Musk’s August 7, 2018 Twitter post that he was considering taking Tesla private. All of the suits are now pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Although the complaints vary in certain respects, they each purport to assert claims for violations of federal securities laws related to Mr. Musk’s statement and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Tesla’s securities. Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint on January 16, 2019 and added as defendants the members of Tesla’s board of directors. The now-consolidated purported stockholder class action was stayed while the issue of selection of lead counsel was briefed and argued before the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit ruled regarding lead counsel. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 22, 2019. The hearing on the motion was held on March 6, 2020. On April 15, 2020, the Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss. We believe that the claims have no merit and intend to defend against them vigorously. We are unable to estimate the potential loss, or range of loss, associated with these claims.

Between October 17, 2018 and November 9, 2018, five derivative lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Mr. Musk and the members of Tesla’s board of directors as then constituted in relation to statements made and actions connected to a potential going private transaction. In addition to these cases, on October 25, 2018, another derivative lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Mr. Musk and the members of the Tesla board of directors as then constituted. The Courts in both the Delaware federal court and Delaware Court of Chancery actions have consolidated their respective actions and stayed each consolidated action pending resolution of the above-referenced consolidated purported stockholder class action. We believe that the claims have no merit and intend to defend against them vigorously. We are unable to estimate the potential loss or range of loss, if any, associated with these lawsuits.

On March 7, 2019, various stockholders filed a derivative suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery, purportedly on behalf of the Company, naming Elon Musk and Tesla’s board of directors as then constituted, also related to Mr. Musk’s August 7, 2018 Twitter post that is the basis of the above-referenced consolidated purported stockholder class action as well as to Mr. Musk’s February 19, 2019 Twitter post regarding Tesla’s vehicle production. The suit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, unspecified damages, and other relief. Plaintiffs moved for expedited proceedings in connection with the declaratory and injunctive relief. Briefs were filed on March 13, 2019 and the hearing was held on March 18, 2019. Defendants prevailed, with the Court denying plaintiffs’ request for an expedited trial and granting defendants’ request to stay this action pending the outcome of the above-referenced consolidated purported stockholder class action.

Certain Investigations and Other Matters

We receive requests for information from regulators and governmental authorities, such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, the SEC, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and various state, federal, and international agencies. We routinely cooperate with such regulatory and governmental requests.

In particular, the SEC had issued subpoenas to Tesla in connection with (a) Elon Musk’s prior statement that he was considering taking Tesla private and (b) certain projections that we made for Model 3 production rates during 2017 and other public statements relating to Model 3 production. The take-private investigation was resolved and closed with a settlement entered into with the SEC in September 2018 and as further clarified in April 2019 in an amendment. On December 4, 2019, the SEC (i) closed the investigation into the projections and other public statements regarding Model 3 production rates and (ii) issued a subpoena seeking information concerning certain financial data and contracts including Tesla’s regular financing arrangements. Separately, the DOJ had also asked us to voluntarily provide it with information about the above matters related to taking Tesla private and Model 3 production rates.

Aside from the settlement, as amended, with the SEC relating to Mr. Musk’s statement that he was considering taking Tesla private, there have not been any developments in these matters that we deem to be material, and to our knowledge no government agency in any ongoing investigation has concluded that any wrongdoing occurred. As is our normal practice, we have been cooperating and will continue to cooperate with government authorities. We cannot predict the outcome or impact of any ongoing matters. Should the government decide to pursue an enforcement action, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our business, results of operation, prospects, cash flows, and financial position.

We are also subject to various other legal proceedings and claims that arise from the normal course of business activities. If an unfavorable ruling or development were to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, prospects, cash flows, financial position, and brand.

Indemnification and Guaranteed Returns

We are contractually obligated to compensate certain fund investors for any losses that they may suffer in certain limited circumstances resulting from reductions in U.S. Treasury grants or investment tax credits (“ITC”s). Generally, such obligations would arise as a result of reductions to the value of the underlying solar energy systems as assessed by the U.S. Treasury Department for purposes of claiming U.S. Treasury grants or as assessed by the IRS for purposes of claiming ITCs or U.S. Treasury grants. For each balance sheet date, we assess and recognize, when applicable, a distribution payable for the potential exposure from this obligation based on all the information available at that time, including any guidelines issued by the U.S. Treasury Department on solar energy system valuations for purposes of claiming U.S. Treasury grants and any audits undertaken by the IRS. We believe that any payments to the fund investors in excess of the amounts already recognized by us for this obligation are not probable or material based on the facts known at the filing date.

The maximum potential future payments that we could have to make under this obligation would depend on the difference between the fair values of the solar energy systems sold or transferred to the funds as determined by us and the values that the U.S. Treasury Department would determine as fair value for the systems for purposes of claiming U.S. Treasury grants or the values the IRS would determine as the fair value for the systems for purposes of claiming ITCs or U.S. Treasury grants. We claim U.S. Treasury grants based on guidelines provided by the U.S. Treasury department and the statutory regulations from the IRS. We use fair values determined with the assistance of independent third-party appraisals commissioned by us as the basis for determining the ITCs that are passed-through to and claimed by the fund investors. Since we cannot determine future revisions to U.S. Treasury Department guidelines governing solar energy system values or how the IRS will evaluate system values used in claiming ITCs or U.S. Treasury grants, we are unable to reliably estimate the maximum potential future payments that it could have to make under this obligation as of each balance sheet date.

We are eligible to receive certain state and local incentives that are associated with renewable energy generation. The amount of incentives that can be claimed is based on the projected or actual solar energy system size and/or the amount of solar energy produced. We also currently participate in one state’s incentive program that is based on either the fair market value or the tax basis of solar energy systems placed in service. State and local incentives received are allocated between us and fund investors in accordance with the contractual provisions of each fund. We are not contractually obligated to indemnify any fund investor for any losses they may incur due to a shortfall in the amount of state or local incentives actually received.

Our lease pass-through financing funds have a one-time lease payment reset mechanism that occurs after the installation of all solar energy systems in a fund. As a result of this mechanism, we may be required to refund master lease prepayments previously received from investors. Any refunds of master lease prepayments would reduce the lease pass-through financing obligation.

Letters of Credit

As of March 31, 2020, we had $272 million of unused letters of credit outstanding.