Elon Musk’s $97.4 billion swing at OpenAI didn’t blow up in front of the jury. It blew up just out of their sight — and then vanished from the official record.

The setup: a monster bid in the background

In February 2025, a Musk-led coalition made a staggering $97.4 billion bid for the nonprofit entity that controls OpenAI, submitted by Marc Toberoff, one of Musk’s lawyers in the current case.¹ The context: OpenAI was in the middle of a restructuring so its for‑profit arm could go public, and Musk’s side says it feared Sam Altman might undervalue the nonprofit’s assets in the process.¹

That bid — and what Musk’s inner circle claimed it meant — became the most explosive subplot of the Musk v. Altman trial. And it all centered on one witness: Jared Birchall, Musk’s money manager.

Birchall takes the stand

Birchall, long known as a key fixer for Musk, was called to testify about the xAI-led bid. During his direct examination, one of Musk’s lawyers received a note from a colleague and turned to Birchall with a fateful question: was he familiar with xAI’s bid for OpenAI’s assets?¹

Birchall didn’t ease into it. He went straight for the most incendiary framing possible: “Sam Altman was on both sides of the table.”¹ He described what he understood as a negotiation structure where Altman effectively represented both the for‑profit and nonprofit sides of OpenAI at once, allegedly “attempting to discount the value of the nonprofit assets.”¹

According to Birchall, a lawyer working with Musk’s camp had even gone to the California attorney general to ensure that “proper value was being given to the assets of the nonprofit of OpenAI,” and the $97.4 billion bid was made to “create a market bid that would need to be considered by the attorney general.”¹

From Musk’s perspective, this narrative did two things at once: cast Altman as conflicted and self‑dealing, and recast Musk and xAI as guardians of fiduciary duty, forcing a fair valuation of OpenAI’s nonprofit.

The first strike: no foundation

OpenAI’s defense team was not about to let that story go unchallenged.

When Birchall first launched into his account of the bid, the defense immediately objected. The initial outburst was struck for “lack of foundation” — legal shorthand for: you haven’t shown this witness has a proper, admissible basis to say all this.¹

So Musk’s lawyers tried again. They rebuilt the line of questioning “piece by piece to establish the foundation,” ultimately landing right back at Birchall’s dramatic accusation: “Sam Altman was on both sides of the table.”¹

The jury heard that line. For a brief, volatile window, Musk’s side had successfully planted the idea that Altman had been negotiating with himself over the fate and value of OpenAI.

Cross‑examination: pulling the thread

Then came cross‑examination by Bradley Wilson of Wachtell Lipton, representing OpenAI. Wilson did not attack the bid itself first. He went after the source of Birchall’s knowledge.

Wilson pressed Birchall on how much of his understanding of the xAI bid and the alleged Altman conflict came from sources other than lawyers. Birchall’s answer was damning in its vagueness: he said he’d “have a hard time being able to untangle that.”¹

After a few more exchanges, Wilson moved to strike all of Birchall’s testimony about the xAI bid on grounds that could not be discussed in front of the jury.¹

The judge, Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers (YGR), now had a live grenade in her courtroom: testimony that was highly prejudicial, arguably speculative, and possibly shaped in real time by lawyers.

The note and the off‑the‑record drama

What made this episode “the craziest part of Musk v. Altman” is that critical pieces of it unfolded while the jury wasn’t even in the room.¹

The Verge’s live account describes the moment: “Jared Birchall, Musk’s money manager, answered a question he wasn’t supposed to. It’s unclear what the consequences will be. The lawyer conducting his direct examination was passed a note by another member of the team, and asked Birchall what was apparently contained in the note: was he familiar with the xAI bid for OpenAI’s assets?”¹

That raised the specter that Birchall’s testimony wasn’t just flawed — it might have been improperly coached mid‑stream.

Judge Gonzalez Rogers responded by sending the jury away early so she could deal with the objection outside their presence. “Jury is being dismissed early so YGR can deal with an objection to Birchall’s testimony,” one dispatch noted, explaining that the move came “after Birchall said he had no first-hand knowledge of the xAI bid for OpenAI’s assets.”²

OpenAI’s lawyers then asked that “his testimony from the direct examination be struck.”²

In other words: erase it as though it never happened.

The judge’s call: wipe it from the record

By the time the trial reconvened, the direction was clear. The judge was not going to let Birchall’s second‑hand, lawyer‑infused narrative about the $97.4 billion bid contaminate the official record.

On May 4, as proceedings drew to a close for the day, the jury was again sent out — and with them went Birchall’s claim to have inside knowledge of the bid’s funding. “Jury is sent out for the day,” The Verge reported. “Just before they left, Jared Birchall’s testimony regarding the funding of the bid to buy OpenAI – the subject of last week’s drama — was struck.”³

That’s the end point of this particular timeline: the most sensational story Musk’s team tried to tell — that Altman sat on both sides of a $97.4 billion table while Musk’s camp heroically forced a fair price — is now legally treated as if it was never told.

Competing narratives

Musk / xAI camp:

From Birchall’s telling, Musk and xAI were white‑knight bidders, stepping in with a massive, market‑setting offer not just for strategic reasons, but to protect the nonprofit’s value and force scrutiny by the California attorney general.¹ In this story, Altman’s dual roles were a red flag, and the bid was an act of fiduciary hygiene.

OpenAI’s side:

OpenAI’s lawyers focused less on the drama of the bid and more on the reliability of the messenger. Wilson’s cross‑examination was tailored to show Birchall as a conduit for what lawyers had told him, not a witness with “first-hand knowledge.”¹² That made the entire episode look like a carefully scripted attack, vulnerable to being tossed as hearsay and speculation.

The judge’s perspective:

By repeatedly excusing the jury, striking earlier outbursts for lack of foundation, and ultimately scrubbing the funding testimony, Judge Gonzalez Rogers signaled a clear priority: whatever Musk and Altman are fighting about, this trial is not going to be decided on a dramatic but lawyer‑fed storyline that the key witness admits he can’t personally substantiate.¹²³

What’s left after the strike

Legally, jurors are now supposed to pretend they never heard Birchall’s most explosive claims. Practically, that’s impossible — but the court’s order means lawyers can’t lean on that testimony in argument, and the written record will treat it as a ghost.

The broader feud over OpenAI’s structure, control, and valuation continues. But one thing is now unambiguous: Musk’s $97.4 billion narrative, as told through Jared Birchall, has been judged too flimsy to stand.

---

1. The Verge – “The craziest part of Musk v. Altman happened while the jury was out of the room” — Account of Birchall’s testimony about the $97.4 billion xAI bid and his claim that “Sam Altman was on both sides of the table.”

2. The Verge – “Jury is being dismissed early so YGR can deal with an objection to Birchall’s testimony.” — Live update noting the jury’s early dismissal after Birchall admitted he had no first-hand knowledge of the xAI bid and OpenAI moved to strike his direct testimony.

3. The Verge – “Jury is sent out for the day.” — Report that Birchall’s testimony about funding the bid to buy OpenAI was struck from the record just before the jury was dismissed.