Thread by @MilesGCohen

"Alan. I have no intention of responding to this email and explaining the tech and processes. Please stop sending me with emails everyday," Sunny Balwani responded.

https://twitter.com/saraashleyo/status/1458569183059402760

"I had suspicions that things were not as they [had] communicated. I had a significant amount of net worth involved in the company," Eisenman answered, after Bostic asked why he wanted more info.

He wanted to "reduce his position," he said.

An April, 2015 from Eisenman to Balwani and Holmes has the subject: "PLEASE RESPOND!!!"

"It is really unfair for you to play this cat and mouse game with me...I cant make a rational decision to sell or hold my stock with the lack of info you have provided," Eisenman wrote.

"Your emails are insulting, full of inaccurate statements and wasteful of our time," Balwani responded. "Our next response to this email and all your future emails will come from our counsel."

Bostic ended his direct there.

Kevin Downey will come on to cross.

Downey begins by pulling up a:

"SERIES C PREFERRED STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT"

First Closing: Oct 13, 2006

(we saw this exhibit with Chris Lucas)

Downey first questioned Eisenman on his knowledge of his friend, Mr. Harris', investment in #Theranos.

"isn't it true that you only had one conversation with ms holmes prior to the time you invested, and it was a very brief conversation?" downey asked

"no," Eisenman replied.

Downey asked the witness to flip to a document in his binder.

It's an email from Eisenman to Harris on 10/12/2006.

"Thank you for allowing me to coinvest in Theranos," he wrote. "I called Elizabeth yesterday and chatted for about 5 minutes."

"This was on the evening of 10/12 and your investment took place on 10/13?" Downey asked

Your decision to make the first investment was as of this 10/13 date? downey asked

Apparently so, eisenman replied

Downey moved to strike an explanation from Eisenman, and the witness grinned.

Granted, by Davila

Back to the stock purchase agreement -

"I have a question -" Eisenman interrupted.

"Let's let me ask the questions for purpose of this exercise," Downey replied.

“Can I ask you what a service frame agreement is?” Eisenman asked



“You cannot,” Downey replied.

“Listen to his question. And try to answer his question as best you can,” Judge Davila instructed Eisenman.

With reference to Eisenman's 2006 investment

"This was not the first time you entered into a stock purchase agreement correct? You had invested in a number of private companies?" Downey asked.

Eisenman agreed.

You didn’t ask for changes in the agreement?


No.

We're now looking at some of the language.

Downey began with this clause:

"Did you in the stock purchase agreement...acknowledge no assurances had been given to you that a public market would ever exist for the company's security?"

"This is what we call boilerplate," Eisenman dodged.

Downey has tried this question three times, to no avail.

The judge intervened, "They get to ask the questions," he told the witness.

In the signed document, "You didn't have any present intention to sell the shares?" Downey asked

Now section 4.5: "Access to Data"

They didn't make available to you info about the technology or tests...you didn't go inspect the tech or anything?

no

and you didn't look at any contracts they had in place

no

you said you advised [your] clients on public equities...

correct

Those companies disclose info every quarter about their operations

correct

and they're required to do that

correct

"Private companies have a higher level of risk but a higher level of return," Eisenman told Downey, explaining why he didn't advise his clients to invest in private companies.

Their tolerance for risk was on a different level, he testified.

We are shown Larry Ellison’s “effective” investment — $5 million on Oct 13, 2006, also in the first closing,

You were provided info by ms holmes?

Correct

You understood you didn't have any right to info under the agreements you signed?

Correct

Thats bc…private companies dont typically provide that same level of disclosure?” compared to public companies, downey asked.

Incorrect

Did you have an atty look at the agreements to determine whether you had a right to the information

No, it was irrelevant

Downey asked Eisenman to flip to another exhibit in his binder.

"Don't say anything out loud," the attorney advised the witness.

Downey impeached Eisenman with prior depo testimony

Q. And is that a true statement of your understanding of your rights. That You had no information rights?

A. Yes

Downey told the judge he planned to move to another exhibit

It's almost 4 o'clock, so Davila said, let's "move to the weekend."

Next week we'll be in court M - TU -W -TH- F

Wow - "It is likely that the government will rest next week," prosecutor Jeff Schenk said.