Elizabeth Holmes owes victims $452M. Her wealthy partner wanted a cut of her hit documentary — but isn't responsible for her debt. Is that fair?

Her blood-testing startup, Theranos, promised to revolutionize modern medicine by performing laboratory tests using just a few drops of blood from a finger prick, but the technology couldn’t reliably do what Holmes had claimed. The company relied on conventional laboratory equipment for many of its tests, while its own devices produced unreliable results.

Holmes went from Silicon Valley’s golden girl to being found guilty of three counts of committing fraud on individual investors and one count of conspiracy to commit fraud on investors, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

With Holmes now on the hook for hundreds of millions in restitution, money appears to have become a source of tension for her and her partner, Billy Evans. In Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim’s new documentary, “You Can See Everything,” Evans, an heir to a wealthy San Diego hotel family, clashes with Fielder over whether the couple should get a cut of the film’s profits.

‘There is potential for this movie to also make a lot of money’

In one scene, Fielder recreates a meeting between Holmes, Evans, Oppenheim and executives from A24. After Holmes steps away to check on their children, Evans makes it clear that he believes the couple deserves a share of whatever the film might earn.

“I do know that there is potential for this movie to also make a lot of money,” the actor portraying Evans says in the reenactment. “And I feel strongly that if this movie were to make money, that we should be entitled to some of it.”

“You Can See Everything” earned $15.6 million during its opening weekend and more than $64 million domestically, according to Box Office Mojo. That’s more than nine times its reported $7 million production budget, although ticket sales aren’t the same as profits.

Fielder had reservations about the arrangement. Paying Holmes and Evans, he argued, could make audiences question the couple’s motives and whether they had any influence over the documentary. Evans wasn’t willing to budge, and according to Fielder, A24 eventually agreed to share a portion of the profits. The terms of that agreement were never disclosed.

But there was another wrinkle. Holmes apparently wasn’t aware of the deal being negotiated on her behalf. Shortly before entering prison, she told Fielder on camera that she had no financial interest in the documentary. Evans later admitted he hadn’t told her everything, explaining that she already had enough on her mind.

According to the film’s closing title card, Evans decided to walk away from the agreement, although the documentary offers no explanation for his change of heart.

Moneywise reached out to Nathan Fielder and A24 for comment on the proposed profit-sharing arrangement, and why Evans declined compensation, but did not receive a response before publication.

The price of participation

Getting paid to appear in a documentary isn’t unheard of, but it’s not standard practice either. Mark Wonderlin, founder and creative director of video production company Mosaic Media Films, told Moneywise that documentary subjects can be compensated in several ways, including reimbursement for expenses, licensing fees for footage or even a share of the film’s profits.

Profit-sharing agreements are less common because they can put filmmakers in a difficult position. If a subject is expecting a cut of the profits, a director might think twice about asking tough questions or including footage that makes them look bad, especially if there’s a risk they’ll stop cooperating. Wonderlin said it’s best to settle any discussions about payment before filming begins, so both sides know what they’re agreeing to.

“If you’ve spent months filming and someone wants to change the agreement, you could lose access to a key person in your documentary if you can’t agree on new terms,” Wonderlin said.

Still, Wonderlin said that just because money is involved, that doesn’t necessarily mean the filmmakers have compromised their independence.

“As for Elizabeth Holmes and Billy Evans, I wouldn’t assume the filmmakers lost their independence because they were discussing profit sharing,” Wonderlin told Moneywise. “As far as we know, Evans decided against taking payment. So with that, it would be more interesting to know if there were any conditions to the deal and if they had any impact on the decisions made by the filmmakers.”

The $452 million question

On top of being originally sentenced to more than 11 years in federal prison, Holmes and Balwani remain responsible for court-ordered restitution payments. They’re jointly liable for the amount, meaning the government can seek payment from either of them, although victims can’t recover the same losses twice. A federal appeals court upheld the order in 2025.

Evans, meanwhile, isn’t responsible for that debt. Although the couple have two children together and have referred to each other as husband and wife, they weren’t legally married.

“Maybe we’ll get married someday. But our bond is more than a piece of paper,” Holmes told People in 2025.

But Evans does have some legal authority to act on Holmes’ behalf while she’s incarcerated. During a recent “Ask Me Anything” session on X, he revealed that he holds power of attorney for her, which can allow someone to handle certain legal or financial matters on another person’s behalf. Evans also pushed back against the suggestion that he controls Holmes or makes decisions without her knowledge.