Evidence Brief · Negative control · Proposed financing · Source-locked
Levitection: The Signed Term Sheet That Never Closed
The 2016 Levitection financing advanced far enough to produce negotiated economics and a signed term sheet. It still did not become a funded investment. The archive shows authorization to negotiate, a proposed $1.7 million two-tranche structure, a July signed-term-sheet transmission, and an August email in which Jeffrey Epstein expressly declined to proceed.
Executive finding
Signed term sheet does not equal funded investment.
The recovered chronology is investment discussion → negotiation authorization → signed term sheet → budget review → explicit decline. No definitive SPA, subscription payment, Southern Trust wire, share certificate, post-money cap table showing the proposed investor, or closing confirmation was recovered.
Person in the record
The proposed investment structure names Barak directly
The June term-sheet markup describes the proposed investor as an entity under Barak’s control, while the July correspondence shows him forwarding the signed-term-sheet chain. The surviving record still ends without a funded close.
Photo: Barak Weizmann, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons.
Source provenance
Proposal, signed term sheet, then explicit decline
Three source pages make the negative-control chronology visible instead of reducing it to a summary.
Page 1 identifies Levitection, a proposed investor under Ehud Barak’s control, and the $1.02 million initial / $680,000 deferred structure.
The cover chain says a copy of the signed term sheet had been sent to Darren and shows Barak forwarding the “Radar Term Sheet” package.
The email records Epstein’s statement that he must decline to move further with the investment, followed by Barak’s acceptance.
Receipt images are source-page renders. The linked archive/PDF route remains the controlling source.
April 2016: permission to negotiate
In EFTA01802733, Ehud Barak tells Epstein that the company has no finished product yet but that he is interested in the science and proposes sending Udi Knaani to negotiate better financial terms. He says the structure would be based on the same construct used in Reporty and that Epstein or Darren Indyke, along with Barak, would be updated as negotiations progressed.
The forwarded thread in EFTA00326339 preserves Epstein's answer to the request to proceed: “Yes.” That is authorization to negotiate, not authorization to fund a final closing.
June 2016: the proposed economics
The June term-sheet markup at EFTA00589112 identifies the proposed investor as “An entity under the control of Mr. Ehud Barak.” It does not name Southern Trust, SUM, ERGO, Hyperion, or another final investment vehicle.
The proposed financing called for:
- $1,020,000 at the initial closing;
- $680,000 as a deferred investment, generally within nine months and subject to milestone language;
- $1.7 million total contemplated cash investment; and
- 38.50% fully diluted ownership after both cash tranches, excluding warrants from that percentage calculation.
The term sheet also says it is generally a statement of intent rather than a binding definitive investment agreement, except for specifically identified provisions such as exclusivity and confidentiality.
July 14: the term sheet is signed and circulated
EFTA00636238 is the signed-term-sheet cover chain. FWMK partner Inbal Sustiel tells Barak that the signed term sheet is attached and had been sent to Darren. Barak then forwards the package to Epstein with the subject “Radar Term Sheet.”
The cover identifies two signed attachments: an investor signature-page PDF and a Levitection/founders signed PDF. The archive does not separately expose clean OCR bodies for those signed attachments, so GAH does not substitute the June markup for the exact signed instrument text.
August 13: Epstein declines
The deal stops in EFTA02346720. After reviewing the budget, Epstein objects to several expense items and writes: “I must decline to move further with this investment.”
Barak replies that he understands and accepts. No later Levitection closing chain was recovered in the Epstein corpus.
The bank test stays negative
Run 7 separately searched the Southern Trust / technology-banking corpus for Levitection-family wires, subscriptions, loans, payment instructions and closing records. It found no matching funded Levitection transaction. That negative control matters because the same bank-first method does recover funded transactions for Reporty and AdFin.
The absence is not proof that no conceivable payment existed outside the surviving record set. It is a source-bounded result: the available Southern Trust banking corpus does not show a Levitection close, and the email chronology affirmatively ends with a decline.
What exists—and what does not
| Closing marker | Status | Source / limit |
|---|---|---|
| Investment discussion | YES | EFTA01802733 / EFTA00326339 |
| Negotiation authorization | YES | Epstein replies “Yes” to sending Udi to negotiate. |
| Detailed proposed economics | YES | EFTA00589112; proposed terms, not definitive close. |
| Signed term sheet | YES | EFTA00636238 cover + attachment names. |
| Definitive SPA / subscription agreement | NOT RECOVERED | No final definitive financing document found. |
| Funding wire | NOT RECOVERED | Run 7 Southern Trust bank search negative. |
| Share certificate / final cap table | NOT RECOVERED | No ownership proof after proposed closing. |
| Affirmative decision not to proceed | YES | EFTA02346720, Aug. 13, 2016. |
Why this negative control matters
A signed term sheet can look deceptively final when viewed out of sequence. Here, the later record resolves the ambiguity. The proposed investor negotiated detailed economics, circulated signed paper, reviewed a budget—and then did not proceed.
That makes Levitection a useful control for the rest of the archive: GAH should classify investments from the strongest recovered closing evidence, not from how advanced the negotiation looked.
What this brief does not establish
- It does not identify the unnamed Barak-controlled investor entity as Southern Trust, SUM, ERGO, Hyperion, or any other specific vehicle.
- It does not treat the June markup as the exact signed July term sheet.
- It does not claim Levitection received Epstein or Southern Trust money.
- It does not infer later ownership, board rights, warrants, or control from proposed terms that never reached a recovered funded closing.
- It does not connect later BIRD/DHS-related activity to the unfunded 2016 investment proposal.
Source chain
The machine-readable source list and negative-control methodology are published at source-manifest.json.
Related: Reporty's funded $1M lane · Methodology · Corrections