Musk-Altman trial’s wildest moment happened while jury was out
▼ Summary
– Jared Birchall, Elon Musk’s finance chief, testified in court about an xAI bid for OpenAI’s assets, claiming Sam Altman was on both sides of a negotiation to undervalue the nonprofit.
– Birchall’s testimony was struck for lack of foundation, but he repeated the claim after establishing the foundation piece by piece.
– Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers questioned Birchall directly, noting his lack of convincing detail on how he raised $97.5 billion for the bid.
– Birchall claimed the bid was a business deal, not part of litigation, and said he got the $97.4 billion figure from the legal team, not Musk.
– Musk’s team may have “opened the door” for further discovery into the xAI bid by raising it in court, potentially leading to more scrutiny.
The most jaw-dropping moment of the Elon Musk versus Sam Altman trial unfolded not in front of the jury, but after they were sent home early. While I am no legal expert, even a casual observer could sense that Musk’s legal team may have made a critical misstep.
Jared “James Brickhouse” Birchall, Musk’s longtime finance chief and fixer, took the stand following Musk’s own testimony. His initial statements were dry and procedural, largely aimed at entering documents into the record, a standard but tedious part of any trial. However, the final moments of his direct examination took an unexpected turn.
A note was passed to the questioning lawyer by another team member. The lawyer then asked Birchall if he was familiar with the xAI bid for OpenAI’s assets. Birchall’s response was striking: “Sam Altman was on both sides of the table.”
He elaborated that a lawyer working with Musk’s team had contacted the California attorney general, asking for assurances that OpenAI’s nonprofit assets would be properly valued during the company’s restructuring. Birchall described a negotiation where Altman effectively represented both the for-profit and nonprofit sides, allegedly trying to discount the nonprofit’s value. The $97.4 billion bid from a Musk-led coalition in February 2025, Birchall explained, was an attempt to create a market benchmark for the attorney general to consider.
This bid, submitted by Musk lawyer Marc Toberoff, emerged as OpenAI was restructuring to allow its for-profit arm to go public. Birchall claimed the bid was motivated by concerns that Altman would undervalue the nonprofit. (Why this would concern Musk and xAI remains unclear.)
Defense counsel objected, and Birchall’s initial statement was struck for lack of foundation. After rebuilding that foundation piece by piece, Birchall reiterated: “Sam Altman was on both sides of the table.”
During cross-examination, OpenAI’s lawyer Bradley Wilson pressed Birchall on the source of his information. When Birchall struggled to separate what he learned from lawyers versus other sources, Wilson moved to strike all testimony about the xAI bid, citing grounds not to be discussed in front of the jury.
The jury was dismissed early, and the courtroom drama escalated. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers began questioning Birchall directly, visibly unnerving him. Birchall claimed not to remember discussing the bid with Musk or Shivon Zilis, nor any other principal of Musk’s organization. It seemed Musk’s team had not properly disclosed this topic during depositions, forcing an impromptu, judge-led deposition. At one point, Gonzalez Rogers told the plaintiff’s counsel to stop coaching the witness.
Birchall admitted to calling prospective investors about the bid but claimed he wasn’t involved in discussions about timing. He said he heard details from Toberoff but was unaware that Toberoff also represented other bidders. He didn’t know if xAI knew about those conflicts either. When asked how he could raise $97.5 billion without remembering specifics, Birchall offered only vague recollections.
“You must have been very convincing,” Gonzalez Rogers said dryly. “You’re not very convincing today.”
Birchall insisted the bid was purely a business deal, not litigation strategy. But Musk’s lawyer Steven Molo had previously blocked discovery into the bid, citing privilege. By introducing the topic on direct examination, Musk’s team may have opened the door for deeper scrutiny. What exactly that door leads to remains unclear, but it likely involves more discovery, possibly concerning anticompetitive behavior. It doesn’t bode well for Musk.
When Gonzalez Rogers asked who passed the note, the lawyers sat in silence like schoolchildren. Eventually, a junior lawyer was identified as the writer, but no one claimed responsibility until Toberoff stood up. “I thought it was appropriate,” he said.
“Sounds like you wanted to open the door, then,” Gonzalez Rogers replied. The court adjourned as she promised to rule on the testimony’s admissibility tomorrow.
(Source: The Verge)
