{"id":40576,"date":"2026-04-30T23:22:28","date_gmt":"2026-04-30T23:22:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/demo4.dedicatedhost247.com\/news\/the-craziest-part-of-musk-v-altman-happened-while-the-jury-was-out-of-the-room\/"},"modified":"2026-04-30T23:22:28","modified_gmt":"2026-04-30T23:22:28","slug":"the-craziest-part-of-musk-v-altman-happened-while-the-jury-was-out-of-the-room","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/demo4.dedicatedhost247.com\/news\/the-craziest-part-of-musk-v-altman-happened-while-the-jury-was-out-of-the-room\/","title":{"rendered":"The craziest part of Musk v. Altman happened while the jury was out of the room"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Okay, I am not a lawyer so I only understood about half of what just happened. But I am fairly sure, given the context, that Elon Musk\u2019s lawyers may have just fucked up big.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Jared \u201cJames Brickhouse<\/a>\u201d Birchall, Musk\u2019s finance guy and all-around fixer, took the stand after Musk today. Most of his testimony was dull and seemed to exist primarily to get some documents read into the record, which sucks but is a normal part of sitting through trials. But at the very <\/em>end of his boring testimony something interesting happened. I believe we all got a surprise, something that rarely happens in courtrooms.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The lawyer conducting his direct examination was passed a note by another member of the team, and asked Birchall what was apparently contained on the note: was he familiar with the xAI bid for OpenAI\u2019s assets?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\u201cSam Altman was on both sides of the table.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u201cAs I recall, a lawyer we were working with had asked the attorney general of California to ensure that in their fiduciary duty, proper value was being given to the assets of the nonprofit of OpenAI,\u201d Birchall said. In his understanding, there was a negotiation \u201cbetween Sam Altman and himself on both sides of the table, the for-profit and the non-profit, attempting to discount the value of the non-profit assets. And we made that bid in an attempt to properly account for the value the foundation had, and create a market bid that would need to be considered by the attorney general.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Here\u2019s some lore: in February 2025, a Musk-led coalition made a $97.4 billion bid for the non-profit that controls OpenAI<\/a>. The bid was submitted by Marc Toberoff, one of Musk\u2019s lawyers in the current case. This bid happened as OpenAI was restructuring itself so that the for-profit arm could be cleared to go public. In Birchall\u2019s testimony, that bid was made because Musk, Birchall, and others, thought Altman might undervalue the nonprofit as the company restructured itself. (I\u2019m not really sure why that would be a problem for Musk and xAI, frankly, but whatever.)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The defense counsel objected, and Birchall\u2019s rant was struck for lack of foundation. So we did this piece by piece to establish the foundation, ending with Birchall saying, again, \u201cSam Altman was on both sides of the table.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

On cross-examination, Bradley Wilson from Wachtell Lipton \u2014 OpenAI\u2019s lawyers \u2014 picked the thread back up. Wilson asked how much of this Birchall had learned from sources other than lawyers. Birchall said he\u2019d have a hard time being able to untangle that. After a few more exchanges, Wilson moved to strike all of Birchall\u2019s testimony about the xAI bid on grounds that would not be discussed in front of the jury.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\u201cYou must have been very convincing. You\u2019re not very convincing today.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The jury got to leave early while the lawyers duked it out, and this is where it got weird. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers started asking Birchall questions herself, and it clearly was making Birchall nervous. Birchall said he doesn\u2019t remember discussing the xAI bid with Musk or Sharon Zilis or any other principal of the Musk organization. It sure sounded like Musk\u2019s lawyers hadn\u2019t given OpenAI proper discovery on this topic in the depositions, and so we were doing a fast and dirty deposition with the judge<\/em> right then. At one point, Gonzalez Rogers told the plaintiff\u2019s counsel to quit coaching the witness.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Birchall said he\u2019d spoken to the other members of the consortium about the bid, but that he wasn\u2019t involved in discussions with Musk about when to send the bid letter. He claimed he\u2019d heard some things from Toberoff, but that he wasn\u2019t aware that Toberoff represented some of the other bidders. He didn\u2019t know if xAI was aware that Toberoff represented some of the other bidders, either.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Birchall didn\u2019t know whether other investors had first-hand information about OpenAI, he claimed. No one had documents from inside OpenAI as far as he knew. Gonzalez Rogers remained unconvinced. \u201cI\u2019m still struggling with how you can have conversations with these individuals to raise $97.5 billion but have no recollections even in a general sense,\u201d she said. Birchall said he had a general sense \u2014 he called each of the people involved to see if they were interested in joining Musk on the bid.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u201cWhy would they do that?\u201d Gonzales Rogers asked. Birchall said these were people with whom Musk et al had longstanding relationships. \u201cYou must have been very convincing,\u201d she said. \u201cYou\u2019re not very convincing today.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Birchall said there were no numbers besides the topline one floated when he called prospective investors, and that after speaking with him, they were passed off to lawyers. He didn\u2019t remember who chose the $97.4 billion number, and said he got it from the legal team, telling Gonzalez Rogers he didn\u2019t get it from Musk. Gonzalez Rogers asked if that analysis was created by anyone besides Toberoff. Birchall said not that he could recall.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u201cDid a lawyer tell you this was part of litigation?\u201d Gonzalez Rogers asked.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

No, Birchall said. It was strictly a business deal.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Apparently Steven Molo, who\u2019d been defending Musk during the deposition, had made multiple objections to questions about the deal, citing privileged communications. Business deals, apparently, aren\u2019t privileged. But all discovery into the xAI bid for OpenAI had been blocked before the trial began. Unfortunately, by asking Birchall about the xAI deal at the very end of the direct examination, Musk\u2019s team may have opened the door for more digging into it. You may be wondering, \u201copen the door to what\u201d and your guess is as good as mine. More discovery? Maybe something about anticompetitive behavior from Musk? It doesn\u2019t sound like it\u2019s going to be good for Musk, I can tell you that much.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Gonzalez Rogers then asked who\u2019d passed the note, and all the lawyers just sat there like guilty children. Finally, the guy responsible said he\u2019d passed it, but he didn\u2019t write it; a junior lawyer did. Who wrote it? More silence. Finally Toberoff \u2014 hardly a junior lawyer \u2014 stood up and took responsibility. Why had he done it? \u201cI thought it was appropriate.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u201cSounds like you wanted to open the door, then,\u201d Gonzalez Rogers said. We adjourned while she said she\u2019d consider what to do with this testimony. She will probably rule on it tomorrow.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Follow topics and authors<\/strong> from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.<\/span><\/p>\n