Please provide a two to four page (single spaced, Calibri, 12 point font) response to the following: In 2016, Tesla entered into an agreement to buy SolarCity, who was heavily in debt, for $2.6 billion. Elon Musk was, at the time, chairman of both companies and owned shares of both companies as well. Tesla's shareholders approved the transaction with 85% voting in favor of the agreement, and Elon Musk received a premium for his SolarCity shares. A group of Tesla investors claimed that Elon Musk used his influence to persuade Tesla shareholders to approve the purchase without sufficient information to make an informed decision. The Tesla investors further argued that Tesla's acquisition of SolarCity amounted to a bailout of SolarCity, which damaged Tesla, and thus the investors investment in Tesla. Elon Must argues that Solar City would have been able to raise capital even if it had not been acquired by Tesla, and that Tesla acquired Solar City to expand its business (ie - to become more than a car company). Which side do you agree with, and why? You will earn points for researching and summarizing the relevant facts associated with the Tesla/SolarCity transaction, thinking critically about the facts and how they may have impacted major decisions by each party, discussing the legal arguments in the shareholder lawsuit, and analyzing ethical considerations associated with the transaction. You are not being graded on your opinion, but rather on your ability to research the transaction and to formulate and articulate an argument for or against it