That he had not articulated any remedy as against the for-profit entity,
that there was zero evidence in the record.
Well, Your Honor, we did not realize that they were going to pivot away from this
argument until after the deadline for summary judgment. This was a late change,
-as Your Honor knows. -I understand that. What was,
uh, it, it's my understanding that this is the only expert they have on damages.
-That is correct, Your Honor. -And that this expert was identified for
all damages for all defendants.
That, that's correct. Uh, and we did not understand, and I, I frankly still don't
understand exactly
how this works. I've, I'm not aware of a principle of law where an expert's report
can be agnostic as to who benefited and who was harmed.
That seems to be what Dr. Wazzan is planning to testify to today.
But
we asked the questions that we asked at the deposition because we wanted to be
clear, at least about the economics of the way he was proposing to present this
testimony. He made clear that it was all coming from the nonprofit. The testimony
was
not ambiguous on that subject, and he gave it repeatedly. And, and I know this may
be a little unorthodox, but I'd, I'd like to, if I could, Your Honor, show you a
slide that Dr. Wazzan is going to present to the court today
from this morning's presentation. Mr. Krye sent this to me last night. I, I think
it's a very nice visualization
-of what we're saying. And so- -So
it's...
Well, let's just get on with the evidentiary hearing.
-Understood. -And, um,
I, I, I can deal with it. I mean, this all b- may be moot.
-Understood. -And I can deal with it,
uh,
in the context of dealing with something if I have to get there. So let's just,
I'll take it under submission,
and
let's just get on with the evidence.
Very, very happy to do that, Your Honor. Thank you.
All right.
-Thank you, Your Honor. -Now, the, um, are all the experts gonna
sit and listen to the testimony of the other experts?
Uh, Dr. Strebelov is in the, in the, uh, courtroom today, yes.
Okay. And Dr. Arnold?
-Dr. Arnold is here as well, Your Honor. -In the courtroom?
-Yes, Your Honor. -Okay. All right. Dr. Wazzan, Wazzan?
Yes, Dr. Wazzan is also in the courtroom, Your Honor.
All right. We should pr- Come on up.
Your Honor, one, one last question. Before we get, dive into Dr. Wazzan's testimony,
I do have, um, some very brief remarks just to situated by way of, I mean, a
short opening for remedies. D- would Your Honor entertain that or, or do you want-
Mr. Wazzan,
-have a seat. -Okay.
-No. -Thank you.
Uh, may I give a witness binder to the witness?
-You may. You need to remain standing. -Please remain standing and ra-
raise your right hand to be sworn.
Do you solemnly
swear and affirm that the testimony you're about to give before this court shall be
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God, or so you
affirm? Please say, "I do," or, "I affirm."
I do.
Thank you, sir. Please be seated. Speak clearly into the microphone.
Please state your full name and spell your last name for the record.
Christopher Paul Wazzan, W-A-Z-Z-A-N.
-Good morning. -Morning, Your Honor.
-You may proceed. -May I hand up a binder, Your Honor?
You may.
Dr.
Wazzan, could you please introduce yourself to the court?
Uh, Christopher Paul Wazzan.
What opinions are you here to provide today?
I'm essentially here to
determine the
value unlawfully captured by Microsoft and the OpenAI for-profit entity that are
-properly attributable to Mr. Musk. -And are you prepared to do that as to each
particular entity? I'm sure you just heard the discussion we had.
I did. I don't follow all the legal intricacies of that. As I see it, it's the
wrongful gains occur in the for-profit entity,
but the nonprofit owns a piece of that for-profit. So sort of by transitivity,
it doesn't really matter to my analysis
-where it comes from. -But your analysis seems to be devoid
of connection to the underlying facts.
That is, you don't seem to connect any of the particular conduct,
you lump it all together.
-I- -D- do I understand your report right in
that sense, that you don't make any distinctions between the conduct that's
actually engaged in by the various players?
I'm not sure I follow. As I understand it, the conduct occurs, the, the wrongful
conduct occurs by the creation of the for-profit-
You did no analysis
of the individual conduct of the individual, uh, defendants and assess
wrongful,
uh, gains depending on what that, those individuals
did, right? You didn't do that. I didn't read that in your report.
I was asked to assume liability, and that the creation of the for-profit entity was
-the wrongful act. -And, and
you were, you were also, um, told to assume that every single defendant's
conduct was equal, right, in terms of,
of their wrongful conduct.
So let's say someone's wrongful conduct attributed to 5%,
and the other is
20%, 20%, whatever.
You, you weren't asked to do any analysis of their individual conduct, right?
-That's correct. -You just said
they're all bad guys. They're all wrongfully a- uh, acting inappropriately.
And so here's the number, and it should be equally assessed to all of them, except
for maybe Microsoft.
Well, they're not equally assessed. They're e- they're assessed predicated on
the percentages that they hold in the for-profit.
-But n- -So there's different percentages that each
-party holds -... but on the backside, not on the front
side.
You're just assessing it based upon their interest, not on their conduct.
U- unless I'm misunderstanding your report.
Y- Your Honor, could I ask, ask some questions that might help clarify this?
No,
after he has asked this, answers this question.
I, I thought I was fairly clear in the deposition, in the report I've-
-I haven't read your deposition. -I'm sorry, Your Honor. I, I, I assume
liability
for the wrongful acts, and the wrongful act was all the parties that
created the
for-profit, and so I'm treating them all equally.
Yeah. So that's what I said. So the answer to my question is yes, right?
-Yes. -Okay. Now-
Just to be clear, Dr. Wasan, y- you didn't do any assessment of wrongful gains
specifically with respect to Sam Altman, right?
-No, I didn't. -And you did not do any, uh, assessment of
wrongful gains specifically with respect to Greg Brockman, right?
-Correct. -You did an assessment for OpenAI's
-wrongful gains? -Yes.
And you did an assessment for Microsoft's wrongful gains?
-Yes. -And for OpenAI's wrongful gains, is it
your opinion that the amount of wrongful gains is the same, whether you look at it
from the perspective of the for-profit or the nonprofit?
-Yes. -Objection. Leading.
Sustained.
Dr. Wasan, in your opinion, what's the relationship,
uh, between the wrongful gains of the OpenAI for-profit and the OpenAI
nonprofit?
Like I said, the wrongful gains occur in the for-profit-
Move closer to that mic so people can hear you.
The wrongful gains occur in the for-profit entity, but the nonprofit owns a stake of
that
for-profit entity.
When you say that the wrongful gains occur in the for-profit entity, what do you
mean by that?
Well, all the wrongful gains occur in the, in the for-profit. There's no, there's no
gains in the nonprofit.
Um, but to the extent that the nonprofit holds an equity stake of the for-profit,
they, they have gained in that fashion.
-And so- -I don't understand what you mean by that
-statement. -Uh, okay.
[clears throat] That is, did you look at the Hemming Morris
analysis of the value of the nonprofit?
Uh, yes.
Okay.
And what was the value of the nonprofit at the time the report was done?
-It was very low. -What was it, do you recall?
Uh, not from memory.
And there was no gain from that position?
Well, the value of OpenAI for-profit is increasing over time, so if you go back
-far enough, it's- -You just-- I'm trying to understand your
statement. You said there was no gain in the nonprofit.
No, no, no. No, I'm sorry. That's... Uh, you're misunderstanding me.
All the profits, all the value is created or is captured in the for-profit.
The charity doesn't generate profits. The for-profit generates profits, but the
charity piece,
the charity parent owns a piece of that for-profit entity.
So as the value of the for-profit increases,
the value of the piece held by the nonprofit also increases.
Proceed.
Dr. Wasan, based on that analysis, what, in your opinion, are the wrongful gains
that OpenAI derived from Elon's contributions?
Which OpenAI? You've gotta be very clear.
What are the amount of the wrongful gains that the OpenAI for-profit derived from
Elon's contributions?
Somewhere between sixty-five billion and a hundred and nine billion. Sixty-five
billion to one hundred and nine billion,
predicated on the October twenty twenty-five value.
And what is the amount of wrongful gains that the OpenAI nonprofit derived from
-Elon's contributions? -The same figure.
What is the amount of wrongful gains that Microsoft derived from Elon's
contributions?
Between thirteen and twenty-five billion.
How much did Elon originally donate to OpenAI?
Around thirty-eight million.
What do OpenAI and Microsoft's wrongful gains represent as a multiple of that
initial contribution?
It's a,
a very large number, like two thousand percent.
Do you consider a two thousand times return on initial contribution to be
extraordinary by Silicon Valley standards?
No.
Are there examples of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs who have achieved two
thousand times returns on their initial investments?
There are many, uh, going back all the way to,
uh, Hewlett-Packard or Apple or any company founded in Silicon Valley that
became very successful,
-all the way up through, um- -What is the rate of failure of the
-startups in Silicon Valley? -Quite high.
What is the number?
I'd have to look at the literature. I don't-
And you're an expert. You can't give me a ballpark?
What's the ballpark?
More than half. More than probably around eighty percent.
-More than eighty percent? -Yes.
And in that case, the, um, gain, had it failed, would have been zero.
Yes.
Proceed.
Uh, do you consider a two thousand times return on initial contribution
extraordinary for a venture founded by Elon Musk in particular?
He has a really successful track record through Tesla, through SpaceX.
Have you analyzed every single contr-- or every single, uh, startup that he's
-funded? -No.
So then how can you make that... I mean, yeah, we all know about the big ones, but
you did no analysis of your client's, um,
all of his ventures? All of the monies that he's given all these startups?
-No. -So you don't know what the failure rate is
then?
For Mr. Musk's particular investments, I do not.
All right. Then next question. He doesn't have foundation for that statement.
-I- -The record can reflect, we know the big
ones.
-Next question. -With respect to the big ones, Dr. Wasan,
how did they fare?
Extremely well.
And was that a, was that fact commonly known among, uh, Silicon Valley investors?
How would he know that?
In the industry? Reframe your question.
Uh,
well,
we'll return to that after I, after we discuss your background in venture capital
investing.
On that topic,
um,
what's your educational background?
I have an undergraduate degree in economics from Berkeley, and a PhD in
-finance from UCLA. -You're currently a managing director at
-Berkeley Research Group? -Yes, I am.
What do you do in that role?
It's a variety of things. I manage the LA office,
um,
and I engage in consulting projects like this. I do valuation work. I do a fair
amount of public policy work.
Um,
kind of general things like that.
Do you also have real-world experience as an investor?
-Yes, I do. -Uh, could you tell the court about that?
Yes, I'm the president and CEO of Wasan and Company Investment LLC,
a company that provides, uh, seed-level financing to startups primarily out of the
UCLA School of Engineering.
How many startups has Wasan and Company invested in?
Seven.
What types of tech startups have those been?
They're basically semiconductor and biomedical, biomechanical firms.
Well, what are the big players in Silicon Valley? What is the number of startups
that they typically are known to have funded
in any given year or any given time period that you know of?
For example, like Sequoia?
Like, like Musk and others. Yeah, Sequoia. How many?
Sequoia,
dozens.
-Dozens over what period of time? -Dozens per year.
And of those dozens per year, we're still getting 80% failure rates?
You know, I,
I couldn't speak specifically to Sequoia or some of the biggers, but overall in the
industry, most startups fail.
Some firms have much higher success rates than others.
Do you have any idea whatsoever how many Musk has funded
-over his career? -I do not.
Seven's a pretty small number,
isn't it, given how Silicon Valley operates in terms of the big venture
-funders? -Yes.
Proceed.
Dr. Wasan,
of those seven investments, have some of them
-yielded successful results? -Yes.
Could you describe those for the court?
-Sure, um- -First of all, how many of the seven?
-Uh, four of the seven were successful. -So just over 50%.
Yes.
-Go ahead. -For the record, what, what was the amount
that Wasan and Company invested in total in those startups?
In total, it was around
40 to 50 million.
And among the four successful ventures, what was the nature of the success?
Um,
Cognet was acquired by Intel.
G+ was acquired by SST.
Mankind went public.
Um...
Hmm.
There's one more I'm forgetting.
Was the last of the fourth also acquired by another company?
Yes.
Oh, I'm sorry, Nomads. Nomads was also acquired.
What was your role personally in connection with the investments that Wasan
and Company made?
So my job was to do the financial forecasting for firms that we're,
we were considering investing in,
and then to raise money from the limited partners, and then to place the money with
the firms, and then-
And of the three that failed, how much money did you put into those?
Um,
let me think.
I'd say combined it was about 5 million for those three.
The 40 to 50 million was yours?
-It was- -I'm looking for apples to apples
comparison.
The 40 to 50 million was some of my money plus money contributed by limited
-partners. -Okay. And the same then, using that
metric, how much was invested in the three?
So I think it was around 5 million combined for those three, and then about
40 million went into the other
four.
Go ahead.
Of those three, um,
you said they hadn't succeeded yet, but is one of those still existing?
One of them is still kind of on its last legs, Gene Fluidics. Um, I, it's about to
go under.
Uh, now-
Did you c- consider that,
um,
the OpenAI
nonprofit was on its last legs about to go under when it was valued by Hemingway?
Well, it had a very low value. That doesn't necessarily mean it was about to
-go under. -So you did or did not consider that fact?
Not explicitly, but I did review those, those documents, and I did consider them
when I did the parsing of where the gains occurred.
Would it have changed your opinion if you had found that it had, in fact-Been
on its last legs, and that there was no way it was going to succeed without
further investment
I don't think so, and I can give you an example as to why. Um,
for example, Amazon did not generate a profit for the first 15 years of its
existence.
-Mm. -So
it raised money initially,
um,
and it's trying to build something, and then in subsequent years it had to raise
more money, and it had to raise more money in round three and round four and round
five. Eventually it became very profitable.
-If it had raised- -But the original-
... no more money, though,
-that wouldn't have changed your opinion? -If it had raised no further money, then it
probably would have gone under at some point.
Proceed.
Dr. Wason, um,
with respect to the questions a few moments ago about Mr.
Musk's other companies,
for a company like SpaceX, was Musk an outside venture capital investor or was he
-a founder? -He was a founder.
And for a company like Tesla, was Mr. Musk an outside venture capital or investor,
or was he a founder or near founder?
He was a near founder. He, he,
he acquired it.
And, and so do you even know that Mr. Musk ever invests in companies as an outside
venture capital investor where he has no, no control over the company?
Object to the form.
I don't have any visibility into what he does with his-
Overruled. He says he doesn't know.
Uh, apart from your professional experience, do you teach courses in
-economics and finance? -I have previously taught at USC and at Cal
-State LA. -What topics?
-Corporate finance and valuation. -Have you published research in economics
-and finance? -I've published about 25 papers in econ
journals and law reviews.
You test-
Econ journals and law,
about 25.
Have you testified before legislative bodies?
-Yes, I have. -On what topics?
Typically public policy,
um, economic impact studies.
And have you testified before as an expert witness?
-Yes, I have. -Approximately how many times?
I think at trial around 15 or 16. Um...
Returning to your methodology, can you just provide an overview for the court of
the methodology you use to determine the portion of the for-profit's wrongful
gains that were attributable to Mr. Musk?
Yes, there's a three-step process. I start with the value of the for-profit.
I then apply a percentage, which is the, um,
the,
the nonprofit's ownership stake of the for-profit,
and then I apply Mr. Musk's percentage,
um, to the
nonprofit's piece.
And in your view, is that an appropriate method to apply to determine the portion
of the for-profit's gains that are attributable to Mr. Musk's investments?
-Absolutely. -Why is that?
Well, it's a way to clearly get at the value of his contributions relative to the
-whole. Um- -So I'm, I'm s- still thinking about your
Amazon, uh, analogy. I take it, though, that the Amazon analogy is different
because
Mr. Bezos stayed with Amazon as opposed to Mr. Musk, who
abandoned OpenAI, right?
He did stay, but he has, you know, he has since stepped down, and the value
-continues to increase. It's, it's- -Yeah, but it had already been successful
once he stepped down.
He didn't step down when it was on its last legs, did he?
No.
In fact, how long did he stay with it before, between the time
it was on its last legs and the time that he stepped down? How long was that?
Oh, a long time.
-Do you know? -Many years.
-Over a decade? -Yes.
Over two decades?
Probably, yes.
Continue.
Dr. Wason,
do you have an opinion about whether
OpenAI would have been able to launch its for-profit at all
but for Mr. Musk's, uh, contributions between 2015 and 2020?
That's not my reading of, of the record, that he was instrumental and foundational
-to the launch of OpenAI. -So I, I thought you were told to assume
the factual basis.
For the wrongful acts, yes.
But you were not told to assume,
uh, this issue?
Did, did you go in
depth into the factual record to make that opinion, or were you told to assume that?
Um, honestly, I don't recall. It's
-probably both. -Did you do the work or not?
I, I did. I looked into it. He, he did all the primary recruiting. He made all the
-original contributions. -So did you then-
-It was his- -... listen to the trial testimony?
-I listened to some of it. -What did you listen to?
Well, there was an audio feed that I had that I was listening to.
Did you listen to particular,
um,
to any particular examinations relative to your opinion today?
Um,
no, but, but they provided me with the, with the transcripts from the trial.
-Okay, so- -So I had those, and I did review those.
-Did you read them all? -I, I, I did.
Okay.
So I'd like to know what the factual basis is for any opinion that is factual
because I was under the impression that he was told to assume liability.
That impression was correct, Your Honor, but Dr. Wason, in c- computing or forming
an opinion about wrongful gains, did you consider the non-monetary contributions
that Mr. Musk made to the nonprofit in its early years?
-Yes, I did. I mean- -But did you feed those to him, or did he
come up with those on his own? That's the distinction I'm trying to make, Mr. Kryj.
So you need to make sure that those questions clearly
delineate-His review of the evidence versus what you, the lawyers, are telling
him to assume
Did we,
Dr. Wason, did your lawyers tell you to assume that
Elon Musk made important non-monetary contributions to OpenAI, or did you come
to that conclusion based on your own analysis?
I, I came to that conclusion on my own. You guys asked me to determine the value
of his contributions.
And as I read the record, and I was doing my work, th- his contributions are
monetary and non-monetary. And so I pursued both of those avenues of analysis.
And so in, in performing that analysis,
you made your own determinations about the importance of those contributions to
-OpenAI's success? -Yes.
Um,
turning to the first step
of your three-step analysis, what is your opinion of the value of the OpenAI
for-profit?
Well, at the time of the report, October twenty twenty-five, it was five hundred
billion.
What did you principally rely on to estimate that figure?
Um,
Microsoft and OpenAI had entered into a agreement whereby the firm would be,
um,
sort of reconstituted as a for-profit entity,
as a public benefit corporation. And as part of that
agreement,
a value, a market price was, was arrived at of five hundred billion.
Uh, I will show you plaintiff's exhibit two eighty-six, which was introduced into
evidence earlier this morning, and in particular, the panel on the right. What
does that portion of the document show?
Uh, it just came up. At the top it says the entire value is five hundred billion.
You can put... You can display it.
Uh, in addition to the, this figure from the public benefit
corporation conversion transaction, did you also look at other data sources to
help you evaluate the value of OpenAI for-profit?
Yes, I did a number of things. Um, one, I created my own discounted cash flow model.
Two, uh, some of the employee shares had been tendered for sale, um,
to third parties like SoftBank.
Those had also set a market price of around five hundred billion.
Um, in addition, some of those shares are traded on,
um, they're not exactly exchanges, but Notice and Forge. Um,
Notice and Forge, uh, they're companies,
um, where, where you can sort of buy non-trading shares,
also with values around five hundred billion.
Uh, we can take this exhibit down.
S- since October twenty twenty-five, have other developments impacted the value of
-the OpenAI for-profit? -Yes. The for-profit has since had a round
of financing
that set a value at eight hundred and forty to eight hundred and fifty billion,
depending on various reports.
To your knowledge, does OpenAI have any other plans that may affect its valuation?
There have been press articles indicating
they're trending to an IPO, where the value, um, is expected to be even higher.
W- what impact would those developments have on your opinion about OpenAI's
wrongful gains?
They would increase the value of those holdings dramatically.
Dr. Wason, let's turn to step two of your three-step analysis. You testified earlier
that you estimated the portion of the OpenAI for-profit's value that's
attributable to OpenAI nonprofit.
What different entities hold interests in OpenAI for-profit?
So Microsoft holds a stake.
Uh, the OpenAI nonprofit holds a stake.
There are, um, first closed limited partners that hold a stake.
There are employees that hold stakes and employee vehicles that also hold stakes.
Did those other investors and employees also contribute value to OpenAI
-for-profit? -Yes.
So w- when you a- allocated, um, that value between OpenAI nonprofit and those
other stakeholders, why did you do that at step two of your analysis?
Because those other entities that created value, um, I'm letting them keep their
value. I'm not assuming any wrongful acts on their behalf in my analysis.
What did you conclude about the portion of OpenAI for-profit's value that's
attributable to the nonprofit as opposed to the other investors and employees?
It's somewhere between twenty-six and twenty-nine percent.
What information did you rely on to reach that conclusion?
Primarily a cap table that the parties themselves, Microsoft and OpenAI, had, had
-made public. -Your Honor, may I show the witness
plaintiff's exhibit two eighty-six that was introduced this morning?
You may.
And if I can focus you on the table in the upper left.
And if it can be published,
-um- -Um,
this is labeled "OpenAI Summary Post Recapitalization Cap Table."
Dr. Wason, what is this chart?
It's the capitalization table that shows the
ownership percentages for the various parties.
At the top, there's a row labeled NFP, including NFP FCLP. What does that
-represent? -That's the nonprofit plus the first closed
-limited partners. -Um, the... Well, well, does the nonprofit
have a stake of the for-profit in its capacity as one of the first closed
-holders? -No.
And so that, um, what does the first row,
uh,
show you about the size of the nonprofit stake in the for-profit?
Well, if you look at the middle column, the diluted for warrant present value
percentage, you get twenty-four point seven percentTo which you would add the
4.5% to get 29.2%.
And you referenced the second row there, the 4.5%, which is labeled NFP warrant
shares. W- what does that represent?
Warrants are just options that the NFP holds that they could exercise. Um,
there are options. The warrants are options that the nonprofit holds.
And where did the,
or how did the nonprofit acquire those warrants?
By grant.
In connection with the, the public benefit company
-recapitalization? -Yes.
Uh, and I think you just mentioned this, but the sum of those, those first two rows
is,
-uh, 29.2%, is that correct? -Yes.
Um,
w- what does the third column, the one labeled fully diluted percent for warrant
PV,
EV sponsored pool, and EIP
reflect?
So some additional shares,
-if you look down towards the bottom- -Hold on, let me get a hard copy.
I apologize in advance, Your Honor, but the hard copy's gonna be very small
because this document had a lot of information on it, and so we zoomed in on
it for the screen, but it may be challenging to read in hard copy.
Uh, and I'm afraid I don't think we did in the witness binders, Your Honor.
Um,
you referenced additional, um,
pools and incentive plans in the third column. To your knowledge, had those plans
actually been, uh, funded with equity grants at the time of this cap table?
Not at the time, but, but they could be potentially, which is why there would be
additional dilution.
And I, uh, you may have mentioned already, but what is the sum of the first two rows
-for that third column? -26.2%.
So based on those two columns, what is your opinion about the portion of the
for-profit
that is attributable to the nonprofit?
-It's between 26.2% and 29.2%. -And I take it this is not in his written
-testimony either. -It is, Your Honor. I can, I'm happy to
direct you to that.
I see it.
Paragraph 54.
Um,
that's exactly right, Your Honor. In, in effect, the whole, the whole section from
paragraph 49 to
paragraph 71 covers this material.
The, um...
Does this table also indicate Microsoft's share of the for-profit?
-Yes, it does. -What does it indicate that share as?
It's 25.5%,
um, to 22.9% diluted.
And does this table also reflect the share that the employees have through the
-existing employee vehicle, ESTES? -Yes, it does.
What is that share?
Uh, the employee vehicle outstanding amount is 25.3% to 22.7%.
And so conducting this second step of your analysis, were you basically allocating
between the nonprofit's share and the share of these other investors and
-employees? -Yes.
Uh, do you have a graphic that would,
uh,
-illustrate that? -Yes.
Uh, Your Honor, may I show the witness this demonstrative from his written
testimony?
I,
I don't understand the question. You're showing it to him. Yes.
Uh, this is a different exhibit. This one's a demonstrative.
Okay, go ahead.
Um, and may, may also publish it to the public.
What does this graphic show, Dr. Wason?
So this pie chart shows the different holdings of the total amount, which is
five hundred billion. So the whole pie is five hundred billion.
Microsoft's piece is twenty-three to twenty-six percent.
Isn't this paragraph 71?
It is, Your Honor.
-Okay. That, that's what I asked. -I misunderstood. I apologize.
Go ahead.
The, the OpenAI nonprofit
piece in blue is the twenty-six to twenty-nine percent.
Dr. Wason, turning to the third step of your three-step analysis,
uh, you mentioned that you determined the portion of OpenAI nonprofit's value that's
attributable to Elon's contributions.
What types of contributions did Elon make to the nonprofit?
He made both monetary and non-monetary contributions.
Who else contributed value to the nonprofit?
Um, other
charitable donations were made. Um, other employees made contributions.
In your opinion, what portion of OpenAI nonprofit's value is attributable to
Elon's contributions?
Somewhere between 50 and 75%.
Does that mean that Elon is responsible for 50 to 75% of OpenAI's entire five
-hundred billion dollar valuation? -No, he would capture 50 to 75% just of the
blue piece of the pie.
So for the financial contributions, how did you get information about the amounts
that Elon contributed?
Uh, I was provided with tax forms, Form 990s, basically, that indicate,
um, all the charitable contributions into the firm.
What did those tax forms il- uh, illustrate to you about the share of
OpenAI's funding
in 2016 and 2017 that came from Elon as opposed to other donors?
That Mr. Musk had contributed sixty percent
of all the contributions in the first two years
W-what did those-
Two years
What did those firms indicate to you about the percentage of OpenAI's funding that
came from Elon during the entire history of the charity?
He was just under thirty percent.
As between those two numbers, which one do you consider more relevant to, uh, th-
the value that was contributed to OpenAI?
Well, I think they're both relevant figures. They're both, you know, actual
hard numbers. Um, but if you have to land somewhere, I would tend towards the sixty
-percent figure. -Why is that?
For a variety of reasons, um, which we'll get into, but for one thing, the early
money is more valuable than the later money typically.
-Um, and that's really- -But if it all runs out?
-If it all runs out- -If it almost did here.
Like I said, last legs, all runs out, then what?
If it all ran out, and then it folded, then there would be nothing left.
So how did you figure that into the analysis? [laughs]
I didn't. It's like y- it's like if you're building a fire, and, um, the first
person who builds the little twigs and strikes a match and lights it has created
the fire. Now, if others come in later and add logs and cut down trees and make a
huge bonfire out of it, without the original match strike, you have no fire.
And even if it's very small, and it's very small, and it's very small for a period
of time,
it's still the predicate act which creates the big bonfire.
Dr. Wason, at the time,
um,
the judge referenced that there was evidence that OpenAI
would start to need more money around twenty nineteen. Had OpenAI already
achieved a number of milestones by that point?
-Like technical milestones? Yes. Yes. -Um, and how does that compare to the
situation OpenAI was in when it was initially set up in December twenty
-fifteen? -Well,
I mean, there was nothing when it was originally set up. It was just an idea.
So if you were looking for future investors-
But, but you've heard Dr. Sutskever's testimony, right?
-I, I believe I- -Listened to it or you read it-
-Yes -... because e- it's gotten lots of
publication.
-Yes. Yes, Your Honor. -That it was an ant,
that the technology, the value of the technology at that time was effectively
the size of an ant.
-Did you read that? -I did.
-And how does it affect your testimony? -It does not.
-Proceed. -Dr. Wason, would the cat have existed if
the ants didn't come first?
-Objection, beyond the scope. -Sustained.
Dr. Wason,
when
was OpenAI a riskier proposition to investors? Back in twenty fifteen where it
-was- -Investors, is that what you're asking, or
charitable donors?
Thank you, Your Honor. When was-- when would OpenAI have appeared to be a riskier
proposition for people contributing money, twenty sixteen or twenty nineteen?
Well,
actually, can, can you explain that to me?
That is,
how you leap from the fact that he made investments in a charity
to
a later entity that was
not a charity.
W-was he--
y-you seem to assume that his contributions to a charity
should be treated like his contributions to a startup.
-Not explicitly. I- -Well, implicitly, that's what you-- that's
why I used the word assume.
Well, I'm trying to value--
I'm trying to capture the,
-the value of his contributions. -But they were, they were contributions to
-a charity. -Yes. But those contributions have value-
In a case where he got no return
...
as originally set up, right. But then when it converts to a for-profit, I, my
understanding is that he has an expectation now of capturing-
Well, who told you that his current expectation
should have any value based upon
a a- as compared to his original expectation?
Well, that's, that's, that's the assignment I was given by counsel.
I see. All right.
Proceed.
Dr. Wason, just to be clear, did counsel instruct you that you should base your
analysis on Mr. Musk's current expectations about what he would have
received had this been a for-profit venture?
No.
Did, did counsel instruct you to determine the portion of the nonprofit's value that
can be attributed to Mr. Musk's contributions as opposed to contributions
-by other parties? -Yes.
Was another factor that you considered in your analysis a pro forma cap table?
-Yes. -What was that?
Um, that was a document that I was provided,
um,
that, that showed relative, um, stakes.
To your knowledge, what were the circumstances in which that document was
created?
So my understanding is that, um,
Mr. Musk and, and the OpenAI parties
were contemplating converting the firm to a f- for-profit entity,
and they were trying to determine who would own what, um,
share, what percentage of shares.
And Mr.,
I believe, Brockman and,
and Sutskever presented an option to Mr. Musk. My understanding, the parties agreed
as to the division of,
of shares,
but the deal ultimately fell apart over a disagreement on board seats.
On board seats?Your Honor, I'd like to show, um,
the witness what we marked as exhibit 373, but this is a, a table that's included in
his written testimony,
uh, which Your Honor can find at,
uh, paragraph 108 of the written testimony. Is it okay if I put that on the
-screen? -You may.
Dr. Wason, what does this table represent?
Uh,
yeah.
This is the,
as I understand it, the agreement between the parties where they discussed who would
own what
-percentage of a for-profit entity. What- -How did you factor into the, um, into your
analysis that he, uh, that all of this assumed he was going to give,
what's that top number, 100 billion?
-That's, those are shares. -Shares.
You, you understood that he was going to contribute a, a billion dollars.
-Did you understand that? -I-
To make the venture
-succeed? -Yes, I believe all... Well,
I thought it was 100 million, but I think all the parties
had agreed to contribute additional funds.
He, Mr. Musk, agreed to give a billion dollars.
Okay.
Do you have that understanding or not?
Y- Y- Your, Your Honor, may I interject here, because I think we're crossing wires
-on two different time periods. -All right, go ahead.
Dr. Wason, do you know whether in 2015 when OpenAI was
first launched and put up a public blog post, whether that blog post included an
aspirational number of, that, that OpenAI planned to raise?
-Yes. -Uh, and does that number have anything to
do with the numbers that are shown on this 2017 pro forma cap table?
No.
Uh, and so, um, as you noted, uh, this cap table listed a $100 million investment
for Musk. What did it list for the other founders?
Um,
10 million for Altman,
uh, 12 million for Sutskever, 10 million for Brockman.
-And- -And did it, did it also list equity grants
-for those co-founders? -Yes.
And based on, uh, this contemplated structure, what would Musk's ownership
interest have been in this,
-uh, contemplated entity? -He would've held 52.4%.
-Uh, in addition to this- -What did he agree at this time then
-to, what did he commit to fund? -100 million.
-Million. -But all the parties agreed at this time to
contribute the funds that are shown here,
and those contributions were sort of in,
were proportional to the amounts that had alr- already been contributed.
So he was sort of gonna maintain his, his
30 to 60% level of monetary contributions. This deal never went forward,
but it's still a really critical piece of information because
since the monetary contributions were envisioned to be in the same proportion,
you can ignore them and focus in on the 52.4%.
Well, assuming that you've got an operating entity.
Which they did at the time.
Your Honor, I, I move to strike Dr. Wason's prior answer as lacking in
foundation and inconsistent with ex- inconsistent with the evidence presented
at the liability trial.
Wh- which particular, um,
-statement, Mr. Wilson? -Most notably the fact that he testified
that all the parties agreed to these terms. There's no evidence that that's
true.
May I inquire about that, Your Honor?
Like, didn't I lay foundation for the witness?
Well, did he, is, do we have a, do...
I h- I would have to go back and check the record, um, about whether or not there
was an agreement when the parties testified. Did they testify? You should
-know. -I do know, Your Honor.
And did they testify that this was the agreement?
Your Honor, the, the evidence showed, and Dr. Wason will confirm, that Su- Sutskever
and Brockman proposed these equity terms to Mr. Musk,
that there was a agreement in principle between them over that, but there was no
final agreement and that it fell apart because
Sutskever and Brockman walked back their position on, uh-
-It wasn't -... Elon Musk's control rights.
Well,
that's true that there was no final agreement. I agree with that. Uh, Mr. Kri
did not mention that Mr. Altman did not even agree in principle, to use his
phrase. There's no evidence that Mr. Altman was amenable to what Mr.
Brockman and Dr. Sutskever were proposing, and I think there's a dispute between the
parties as to the reason why this deal fell apart. The, the one thing that's
clear is that it, it did not actually come together.
So if there was no agreement,
then that would,
um, then how would your testimony change?
So it would not change there, there, and because of, for several reasons.
-So, so- -For several reasons
... it doesn't matter that they agreed? Does it matter or not?
No, because i- in,
for example,
two firms wanna merge, and the investment bankers on both sides pr- prepare
documents that include valuations and who's gonna hold what shares and how it's
gonna go forward. And all those things go into the record.
If the deal ultimately doesn't go through, that's still valuable information that
somebody like me can rely upon. This is what the parties were thinking at the
-time. So it's- -They were thinking a lot of things, and
some of the things you, um,
you have in your report and some you ignore,
which goes to the weight of your testimony. So I'm asking you,
does it matter to your opinion whether or not they agreed, yes or no?
No.
Okay.
-Go ahead. -Just to be clear, Dr. Wason, who proposed
the equity figures reflected on this table?
-Mr. Brockman and Mr. Sutskever. -And during these negotiations, were they
aligned with
Elon, or were they basically on the other side of the negotiating table from Elon?
No, they were-
Okay, go ahead.
Well, I, I would assume they were aligned.
Well, it's ... Sorry, they were ...
To the extent they were negotiating equity stakes, did Brockman and Sutskever have a
financial incentive to inflate the amount that Elon Musk would receive?
-No. -Objection. No foundation.
Sustained.
-Then- -That's an argument.
-Would the- -It's sustained.
Yes, Your Honor.
What, uh, do you consider the proposal made by the counterparties to this, or
Mr....
Strike that. Do you consider the proposal made by Elon's counterparties in this
discussion to be relevant evidence of the,
uh, share of value they ascribed to Elon's contributions to OpenAI at this point in
-time? -Hold on one moment.
Objection. Leading.
Sustained.
-You can- -Uh, can you hold on a moment?
Sir, come forward.
-Good morning, Your Honor. -Good morning. What is your name?
-Sir, what is your name? -Uh, Martin Ng.
Okay. Are you a member of the public, or are you a member of the press?
Um, I'm
considered a private party.
I was in the press a long time ago,
-and I was a tax auditor. -You can read English, right?
-Uh- -You understand that there is no recording
-in this courthouse? -Yes, I agree with you, uh, Your Honor.
Then why do I have a report from the marshals that you're recording?
Okay.
Are you recording, yes or no?
Did you record anything?
Well, I don't know. I did not take any photos,
and I, I, I listen to the stream on YouTube as always.
And then, um,
and then, uh, I thought it's probably is okay to record because it-
It says all over this courthouse you cannot record. You're ordered to go down
into the marshal's office. They can-- are authorized to look at all of your
-electronic devices- -Yes
-... and delete everything. -Yes, I agree.
-Okay? -If there's-
Do not rec-
-We are in the middle of a hearing. -I understand.
I a- I apologize if I did it wrong, but I, I did not read it,
-and, uh, uh, uh- -So you ... Then, then you're blind to have
ignored all of the notices all over this courthouse, all of the warnings that we
repeatedly give. You cannot record in a federal courthouse.
Yes.
If the marshal please take him downstairs. Thank you.
Your Honor.
All right, proceed.
Dr. Wason, why did you consider it relevant what Mr. Brockman and Mr.
Sutskever proposed to Mr. Musk about what
his equity share should be?
So look, I'm looking at, at a variety of evidence as I'm doing my analysis.
I had his original monetary contributions between 30 and 60%.
Now I have a,
a, a, a document that shows the parties were contemplating 52.4%.
That's right in the middle range.
I would've shaded higher because the earlier money, i- in my opinion, is more
valuable, but these, all these figures are consistent.
And to your understanding, w- was the reason that
no, or well, to your understanding and review of the record, was the reason that
this transaction was never consummated because-
Don't lead, Mr. Cry.
Thank you, Your Honor.
To your understanding, why was this agreement never consummated?
My understanding is that the deal fell apart because they couldn't agree on
control, on board seats.
Let's talk about the
last factor you mentioned. That's the non-monetary contributions.
-Yes. -What sorts of non-monetary contributions
did Elon provide to OpenAI?
So the non-monetary contributions consist of,
um,
leadership, know-how,
reputation,
um, ability to, to call in favors from other industrialists. All those things
blend together to create value. Um, and Your Honor, I can, I can sort of give you
an analogy if it would be helpful.
-I understand the basic premise. -Okay.
Dr. Wason, what does the finance literature say about the role of
-reputation in this context? -That it's absolutely valuable and
important. If you have a luminary investor who contributes to something,
um, that signal, that sends a signal to the market and to others who are less
informed that, oh, this, this very successful
bright person,
uh, thinks this is a, an exciting opportunity.
Their,
the asymmetric information is reduced, and they will also then be more willing to
contribute.
Does that finance literature include empirical studies that a- analyze the, uh,
-the role of high-profile investors? -Yes, it does.
-And what do those empirical studies show? -It, it shows that prestige investments
drag other investments along.
Dr. Wason, what was Elon's reputation and public profile when he helped found OpenAI
in 2015?
-Sky-high. -Why is that?
Well, he had already ... You know, Tesla was a huge success.
Uh, SpaceX was up and running.
He had already demonstrated his
... He, he, I think he was already the richest man in the world at that time
Did your review of the evidentiary record in this case reveal any documents that
were relevant to that subject?
-Yes. -What were they?
Um,
there's, there's discussions between,
um, the parties here that his,
his participation in OpenAI was invaluable.
How did Elon's public profile compare to Sam Altman or Greg Brockman's public
-profile during this timeframe? -He was,
-it was much higher. Much, much higher. -You also mentioned strategic guidance and
know-how. What does the finance literature say about those topics?
It says that savvy in- investors and savvy builders, people who have done it before,
um, can help guide new fledgling companies with their...
Guide fledgling companies with their,
their wisdom, their knowledge.
Was Elon's background up to that point relevant to this topic?
Yes, very much. He'd already built successful companies.
Did the evidence that you reviewed in the case
inform your opinions about
any strategic guidance or know-how that was provided?
Um,
yeah, I mean, the, again, there's, there's emails and there's documents between the
parties indicating that his,
his knowledge, his contributions, his guidance were invaluable.
Your Honor, may I show the witness exhibit 98, which is already in evidence?
-You may. -And may I publish that?
You may.
Dr. Wason, what is this document?
Uh, this is an email from Mr. Sutskever to Mr. Musk.
Uh, what's the date?
Uh, the date is January 2018.
Uh, is, did this email inform your opinion about whether Elon contributed guidance
and know-how to OpenAI?
Yes.
In what way?
Well, it shows that, um, Mr. Sutskever, well, I'll just read it. "It helps that we
have
the most overwhelmingly competent person in the world helping us."
Um, and it's addressed to Mr. Musk at SpaceX.
He,
it, to me, I re- it speaks for itself. He-
Let, let me, uh, Your Honor, may I also put on the screen exhibit 99, which is
already in evidence?
-You may. -May I publish that?
You may.
What is this document, Dr. Wason?
It's an email from Mr. Brockman to Mr. Musk
at the same, same date.
Did this email inform your opinion about whether Elon contributed strategic
guidance and know-how to OpenAI?
Yes. It says, "In every meeting with you, I continue to learn, grow, and see the
world in a new way."
Can high-profile founders or investors also help with recruiting?
Absolutely.
What did the evidence you review
show about Elon's role in recruiting?
My understanding is that Mr. Musk was instrumental in, in recruiting all the
primary,
um,
participants,
in r- in particular
recruiting the scientists, Mr. Sutskever and Mr. Dingma.
And what, what did the record show about Elon's-
Ding- Dingma
Is that, is that Dirk Kingma you're referring to?
Dingma. I'm sorry.
Uh,
what, what did the, your review, um, show you about the
impact of Elon's role in connection with the recruiting of those two individuals?
That he was critical in attracting them to OpenAI.
That's not what Mr. Sutskever testified to.
-That's what the documents that I read- -That's not what he testified to under
oath.
Yes, Your Honor.
So does that have any impact on your analysis?
-Well, the recruiting is, is- -It, it's just yes or no. Does it have an
impact or yes? Yes or no?
-Small impact, yes. -Okay.
But there's no way to quantify that, right?
So the non-monetary contributions cannot be,
I, I can't give you a point estimate that says
it's a 20% premium over the non, over the monetary because the academic literature,
it doesn't give you a point estimate.
-Excuse me, your Honor. -The jury.
Go ahead, Evan.
All right,
proceed.
So doesn't give you a point estimate. What it does is it, it highlights that it's a
-very valuable thing. -E- except he testified
differently than what the document showed.
-I'm- -And did you not listen to that testimony?
I did, but I'm talking about the non-monetary as a, as a whole,
which includes recruiting, but it includes sort of being the-
So if you heard that testimony,
why w-
why wouldn't you say in your
under-oath testimony here that
if, that, that that, or why would you credit that document when you heard him
testify under oath that that wasn't, um,
that Mr. Musk was not a big factor in recruiting him?
Your Honor, may I refresh the witness' recollection with the references in his
written testimony?
We have a verdict.
You may stand down.
You can, um, leave the stand for a moment. You're not excused. Let's call the jury
in.
Yes, Your Honor.
The
prize went under-
Ma'am, be seated.
Um, I just was handed
a-- We're, we're all here because I was conducting. We're here. But I was just
handed, uh, this folder, which is the verdict folder.
You have a verdict?
Yes.
It's unanimous? Yes. Okay.
Mr. Klinke.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury,
listen to your verdict as it will stand recorded.
United States District Court, Northern District of California, Oakland division.
Case number twenty-four dash CV dash four seven two two dash YGR.
Elon Musk et al. versus Samuel Altman et al.
Verdict.
We, the jury in the above entitled case, unanimously find as follows.
Number one,
on the claim for breach of charitable trust,
is the claim barred by the statute of limitations?
Yes.
Two,
on the claim for aiding and abetting breach of charitable trust,
is the claim barred by statute of limitations?
On the claim for restitution based on unjust enrichment, is the claim barred by
statute of limitations?
Yes.
Is the sign, uh, the verdict form signed?
-It is, Your Honor. -And dated?
-It is, Your Honor. -Okay.
-Would counsel like the jury polled? -Poll the jury.
We will poll the jury.
Juror number one, is this your verdict?
Juror number two, is this your verdict?
Juror number three, is this your verdict?
Juror number four, is this your verdict?
Juror number five, is this your verdict?
Juror number six, is this your verdict?
-Juror number seven, is this your verdict? -Yeah.
Juror number eight, is this your verdict?
Juror number nine, is this your verdict?
-Your Honor, the verdict is unanimous. -All right. The verdict can be recorded.
-So recorded, Your Honor. -Uh, I assume people do not want it reread
as recorded.
-No. -Okay.
Uh-Then
the jury having found that the defendants proved the statute of limitations defense,
the court now confirms its prior indication that it would accept the jury's
findings as its own. Accordingly, the claims of breach of charitable trust and
unjust enrichment are dismissed as untimely. The claim for aiding and
abetting is dismissed as a matter of law, given that it is dependent on a finding of
charitable trust. It too is, uh, dismissed.
So members of the jury,
I cannot thank you enough
for,
uh, deliberating in this, um, difficult case.
I wanna leave you with, uh, a few thoughts.
First of all, now that the case is over,
you may talk to anyone
about anything [laughs]
dealing with this case,
and that includes the lawyers, the parties, their representatives.
Everybody and anybody can talk to you. However,
I order
that those discussions must occur at a reasonable time
and in a reasonable place and only with your consent.
I've taken some measures, um, that I'm gonna explain to you.
Um, but
if anybody ever approaches you and asks you if you wanna talk,
all you have to do is shake your head no,
and they are ordered
that they cannot speak to you.
You get their name, their phone number, their email, and I will deal with them if
they bug you in any way, shape, or form.
All right?
You will not be harassed.
All you have to do is say no.
And you have Mr. Clenko's email,
uh, and, and I will handle it. Okay? You have my assurance.
We have big cases like this in our district,
and we will deal with people if they do not follow that order.
Y- you are not here to be in any way made uncomfortable. You have done a great
service to your country
and to this community and certainly to this court and the Court General.
As I said to you at one point,
really important that we have jurors,
right? So that we resolve our disputes in courtrooms with reasonable people
who have no- nothing to gain.
Um,
you've done a service. And like I said, if you wanna talk to them, you're welcome
to.
Sometimes lawyers, for instance, will wanna talk to you 'cause they wanna learn
how to do their job better. They may ask you about w- what you thought of how they
presented their case or their evidence.
So it's up to you. It's entirely up to you.
Okay?
Um,
I have a small,
uh,
a small token of my personal appreciation for you. Federal funds have not been used
-to pay for this, but Mr. Clenko- -[laughs]
Uh, Mr. Clenko, uh, will give you something from me, uh, and Mr. Clenko,
-it's on my side table by my chair- -Yes
... um,
when, when he takes you into the back room.
Um,
I'm also, uh, happy to chat with you myself. If you'd like, just let him know,
and I will go back there, um, to chat with you.
Uh,
I, um,
I am not a very poetic person, never was as a kid,
um, but I do like to leave
jurors,
um, with a reflection
on jury service. And so I'm borrowing, um, this
quote
from one of our former United States Supreme Court justices,
William,
uh, O. Douglas,
uh, who-- he had a pretty poetic comment on the jury system, which I think is, um,
apt here
and important for us to all remember.
And, uh, I've modified it, um, a little bit for this group,
but, uh, he said as follows:
"A jury
reflects the attitudes and mores of the community from which it is drawn.
It lives only for the day
and does justice
according to its limits.
The group of jurors who are drawn to hear a case
make a decision
and then melt away.
It is not present the next day to be criticized. It is the one governmental
agency that has no ambition.
It is as human
as the people who make it up.
And while it is sometimes persuaded by emotion,
the effects are that at times it takes the sharp edges off the law and uses
conscience to soften some hardships within the law.
Also,
since it is of and from the community,
the jury gives the law an acceptance
in a way that verdicts by judges such as myself cannot."
So with that, members of the jury,
you are excused with my gratitude.
Mr. Clenko.
These rights for the jury.
[clears throat]
Thank
you.
Thank you,
Susan.
Mr. Mullow.
Uh, counsel.
This is, um,
I guess what we can do, uh, you let me know,
Mr. Mullow,
whether you still want me to, um, do a writing.
Um, I've always said that I was going to accept the jury's verdict on this issue.
Uh, I thought it was an important issue to be tried. I think it's important for us
to have a trial
to bring clarity.
Um,
and, uh,
I can write it up, but it's not as if this case
hasn't been,
uh, publicly,
uh,
litigated in a sense.
So to the extent that you want to appeal what is a quintessential, quintessential
factual finding on statute of limitations,
um,
like I said, I can write it up, or you all can just argue it the way you would
always argue a jury verdict.
Uh, and I've--
Mr. Cry just gave you a note. I don't know if you,
uh, can waive, uh, the writing
or what your plan
is.
Um, well, certainly I want to preserve my right to appeal, but can I have--
get back to the court tomorrow, or let me consult with my client.
I think that that's fine. If you can, um,
put something on the docket by nine.
If you are not going to require or if you waive, um, the filing of
a statement of facts, I can tell you that what I will do,
um, it, it will be short,
and it will
basically reference a lot of documents. I don't know that it's going to,
uh-- Well, it, it, it's up to you. Um, but I do think that, that things like statute
of limitations and whether someone knew or should have known or did sufficient
diligence to know, those are, those are factual issues.
Uh,
and, um, I think that there's a substantial amount of evidence to support
the jury's finding,
which is why I was prepared, um, to dismiss on the spot.
So
I know I still have an obligation to write it up if I have to,
uh, but my preference would be to start preparing for my next trial.
Understood.
So,
um, is there an objection?
I mean, are, are the defendants going to ask that I write this up?
No, Your Honor. We're, we're pleased to have this proceed at the convenience of
the court.
Uh, the jury's asked to meet, um, and so I will meet with them. I never talk to them
specifics about the case. I just talk to them about process and everything else.
So I'm gonna go do that.
Why don't you all also talk about-- I mean, we've got lots of claims left,
whether we're gonna have a status conference or what we're gonna do on the
balance,
um, of the, uh,
of the case.
All right. So why don't I
plan on at least meeting with lead counsel in
an hour or so? I'll be around. I'm not going in.
-All right. -Great. Thank you.
-Stand- -Thank you, Your Honor.
-Court is in recess.
[laughing]
I understand.
Hello.
It was cool to watch how you've already gotten it. Well, amazing. Congrats.
Yeah. [laughing]
Yeah.
No, no, I'm with you. I'm so happy. [laughing] No, we good. That's so
beautiful. I'm so happy for you. Next
step.
Thank you. I was ready.
Very good. Thank you. I think we're getting
better.
[laughing]