RSS
Логотип
Баннер в шапке 1
Баннер в шапке 2

Tripp Martin (Martin Tripp)

Person


Previous jobs:
Tesla Motors
Employee

Content

Tripp Martin (Martin Tripp)
Tripp Martin (Martin Tripp)

Biography

2020: A penalty in the amount of $400 thousand for disclosure of a secret about development of the electric vehicles Tesla

At the end of November, 2020 it became known that the ex-employee of Tesla Martin Tripp will pay the companies of $400 thousand in the claim for disclosure of a trade secret, violation of contract commitments and false declarations in mass media.

The company Elon Musk took legal action of Nevada in 2018, within the claim of Tesla demanded from Martin Tripp $167 million against the background of reduction in cost of stocks of the company because of violations of the ex-employee. Tripp admitted guilt. Being an employee of Tesla, he sent to journalists e-mails, claiming that the company will not be able to achieve the object set by Elon Musk, it is about production electric vehicles Model 5 thousand 3 weekly. Tripp also claimed that install the rejected accumulators on cars and the company violates ecological requirements.

The lawyer Martina Trippa Robert Mitchell called claims of the company absurd. He noted:

File:Aquote1.png
The stated amount of damage is too overestimated. It is connected with expected reduction in cost of stocks of Tesla which happened after Tripp provided to the press information last summer.
File:Aquote2.png

In September, 2020 the court nevertheless satisfied claims of the American company in full, however the amount which the ex-employee of Tesla should pay, was not specified. It is known that $400 thousand are only a part of the amount which Tripp should pay, all parts on expected compensation of means will be approved later.

After the appeal of Tesla to court Martin Tripp submitted the counter action, having accused the company and its CEO of slander, insulting statements in media and demanded for it compensation in the amount of $1 million. The judge, however, left the claim without satisfaction, he decided that the claimant could not reason the position properly.[1]

Notes