You Can See Everything has a ton of WTF moments, including one in the postscript before the credits roll that explains that Elizabeth Holmes (via her partner Billy Evans) decided to opt out of a cut of the profits from the movie that Evans negotiated for on-screen earlier in the project. At least one lawyer argues that the couple may have had to avoid the money because not only is Holmes currently serving a decade-long sentence in prison for fraud, but she and her partner in crime, Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani, also have been ordered to repay $452 million in restitution for their fraud.
There are some spoilers ahead, and please note that I am not a lawyer, and there are a lot of intricacies at play here, so take that into consideration.
Billy Evans Made A Deal For A Cut
In one of the more talked-about scenes (though not as talked about as Evans’ full-frontal), Evans strikes up a negotiation with co-directors Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim, as well as the producers of You Can See Everything, to earn a piece of the profits of the movie. He does so after Holmes leaves the room and later, when confronted by Fielder about Evans’ proposal, Holmes claims to have no knowledge of what Evans proposed. It’s left to the viewer to determine if Holmes is lying about that. Eventually, the filmmakers and Evans reach an agreement.
However, at the end of the movie, there is a postscript that informs the audience that Evans pulled back on the deal and the couple would not be getting a cut. This confused me. Why wouldn’t you stick to a deal that could potentially make some money for the presumably somewhat cash-strapped couple (despite Evans’ family wealth)? Well, there may be a legitimate reason Evans and Holmes needed to back out, and it has to do with the judgment Holmes is under after being convicted of defrauding investors with her company, Theranos.
One Lawyer Thinks The Couple Had To Turn The Money Down
In an article posted by lawyer Leslie Sammis, she points out that while Evans may have thought he was being tactical by waiting until Holmes was out of the room to begin the money talk, that might not have worked. In the article, Sammis writes:
Evans likely believed he was running a clever negotiation, while Holmes relied on the idea that leaving the room gave her clean hands and plausible deniability. In federal practice, that separation is an illusion. Had Billy Evans insisted on being paid, it might have attracted attention from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California.
Holmes doesn’t get out from under that judgment, even when she is finished with her prison sentence, as Sammis also points out. That huge restitution, in Sammis words:
acts as an aggressive, multi-decade financial straitjacket that might prevent Holmes from accumulating wealth, maintaining large bank balances, or titling any luxury property in her own name, at least for the twenty years after she completes her sentence.
So, her argument goes, even if Evans thought he was being sly, the government likely wouldn’t see it that way and could, theoretically, try to claw back whatever money the couple earned, no matter what.
What is for sure is that someone, either Evans or Holmes, or those she owes money to, has missed out on a pretty big chunk of change, given You Can See Everything’s incredible run at the box office as part of the 2026 movie schedule. The movie, which could get multiple Oscar nominations as well, has, to date, earned around $65 million so far, against a budget of around $7 million. Holmes and Evans won’t see any of it.
