Finance
The many faces of Kevin Morris, Hunter Biden’s financial patron
“Who was the real me? I can only repeat: I was a man of many faces.”
Those words by author Milan Kundera could well have been written for Kevin Morris, a critical figure in the unfolding Hunter Biden scandal.
Morris was largely unknown to most people until he emerged as the Democratic donor who reportedly paid the president’s son millions to handle his unpaid taxes and maintain his lavish lifestyle. The Hollywood lawyer and producer portrayed himself as a good Samaritan on a biblical scale — a good man who simply found a desperate stranger on the road and gave him more than $5 million.
His counsel, Bryan M. Sullivan, stated that “Hunter is not only a client of Kevin’s, he is his friend and there is no prohibition against helping a friend in need, despite the inability of these Republican chairmen and their allies to imagine such a thing.”
The statement captures the problem for Morris. It is increasingly hard to determine what Morris was at any given moment: Democratic donor, lawyer, friend. Indeed, that is precisely the problem that some of us have raised for months.
Lawyers are not supposed to personally pay the bills of their clients. Specifically, California Bar Rule 1.8.5(a) states that “[a] lawyer shall not directly or indirectly pay or agree to pay, guarantee, or represent that the lawyer or lawyer’s law firm will pay the personal or business expenses of a prospective or existing client.” They are required to maintain clear representational boundaries. This is also now the subject of a new bar complaint filed by a conservative legal group this week.
Friends have described Morris as a “rule-breaker” and admit that his relationship with Hunter raises eyebrows. “Certainly it’s not careful, but he’s a gunslinger,” one told the Los Angeles Times. “This is how he rolls.”
But the legal ethics rules are designed to avoid gunslinging generally and ambiguity specifically.
Hunter calls him both his lawyer and his “brother.” Lead counsel Abbe Lowell observed, “I have never in any of my representations of any other client — other than someone who is an immediate family member of one of my clients — known anyone who is like Kevin.”
When the relationship began, Morris was playing the role of a loyal Democratic donor.
He was introduced to Hunter at a 2019 political fundraiser by another producer and Democratic deep pocket, Lanette Phillips. Soon thereafter, Morris was giving Hunter copious amounts of money and legal advice. That would include reportedly paying off Hunter’s long-delinquent taxes before criminal charges were filed. It also included covering Hunter’s lavish lifestyle.
Morris may be most eager to avoid the label “democratic donor” because these payments could be viewed as an unreported campaign donation. Morris first appeared during Joe Biden’s campaign for president. Then, on Feb. 7, 2020, shortly after the inauguration, Morris flagged how the taxes represented a “considerable risk personally and politically.” He seems to have sought to resolve that political liability by paying off the taxes. He has insisted it is being treated as a loan.
Those payments would continue, and Morris insists that it was all standard “loan” stuff. Except he is not a bank, and Hunter was routinely called his “client.”
It is also important that these millions are treated as loans because, if they are actually gifts, they could create a new tax problem. Hunter would have to declare such “gifts,” and taxes would be owed on their value.
Few would view Hunter as a good risk for a loan, given his history of stiffing a wide array of businesses and associates. Indeed, he reportedly even struggled to pay for alleged high-end prostitutes. He was even accused of using a credit card connected to his father to pay off an alleged Russian call-girl. Even the art dealer who recently sold Hunter’s art reportedly testified that Hunter never reimbursed him for the costs of the shows.
Those art sales add an interesting twist to the mysterious role of Morris. Recently, art dealer Georges Bergès blew away White House claims that Hunter had been barred from knowing the names of purchasers under a comprehensive ethics system. He admitted that Hunter knew the identity of 70 percent of the purchasers.
It was not hard. Despite news reports of buyers flocking to buy the art, it now appears it was largely Morris who bought the art. Notably, however, Morris reportedly only paid Bergès’ 40 percent commission on the $875,000 purchases. It is not clear whether Morris applied the principal against the outstanding debt. That would be a clever way to treat the money as a loan, if it were used for that purpose. You simply have Hunter crank out dubious pieces of art and arrange for an ally to throw art shows in New York. You then have media allies write how buyers were “floored” by Hunter’s talent.
Finally, you pay the commission on the excessive prices for the art while writing off the value of the art as a type of in-kind payment of the loan. With some valued at close to half a million dollars, many mocked the fact that Hunter was getting more than some Pablo Picasso sales. Yet those inflated prices would be useful to count as direct or indirect payments for the loans.
We still do not know how these purchases or the loans were treated, and whether Morris was acting as a donor, friend or lawyer. Now, Morris is adding a new role to this pile of identities, reportedly supporting a new movie on Hunter Biden.
Call it “Mr. Biden Goes to Washington,” a rewrite of Frank Capra’s classic, only this time the corrupt establishment wins.
In the original movie, a young novice appointed to the U.S. Senate fights the corruption of Washington, where his senior senator has sold access and influence to James Taylor, a wealthy businessman. Taylor scoffs at the notion that the establishment can be challenged. After all, they control the media and what the public will read and hear. As Taylor assured the senior senator, “I’ll make public opinion out there within five hours! I’ve done it all my life…You leave public opinion to me.”
Morris is still fighting to shape public opinion, and, in Hollywood, movies make reality.
Morris “makes public opinion,” and the media can be expected, again, to assist in those efforts.
Many in Washington believe that Hunter’s stunts in holding a press conference defying his subpoena, and later crashing his own contempt hearing, were literally made-for-television moments. These scenes were captured on film and will no doubt be featured in the new film on his heroic struggle.
The question is the audience for the film. Clearly, in the Beltway, audiences are likely to be sobbing with emotion as Hunter fights against inquiries into influence peddling. They will cheer at Joe Biden’s moment channeling John Wayne, when he declared, “No one f**ks with a Biden.”
However, most audience members would not have felt the same thrill if, at the end of the original movie, the corrupt Sen. Joseph Paine and the wealthy Taylor had emerged as the victors, fighting off the do-gooders and “boy rangers” supporting Jimmy Stewart’s main character.
The question is also who would play Morris — or more accurately, how many would have to play this “man with many faces.”
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Finance
Evoke Entertainment Closes $35 Million Production Financing Facility Backed By Major Private Credit Fund
EXCLUSIVE: Evoke Entertainment has closed a senior secured production financing facility of up to $35 million backed by a multi-billion-dollar private credit fund.
While we verified the deal with the lender, they spoke with Deadline on the condition of anonymity, per company policy. The revolving production facility is designed to support Evoke’s expanding slate of independent features, television movies, streaming films, and series — significantly increasing the company’s already high-volume production output across major studios, networks, and streaming platforms.
More from Deadline
Structured around contracted revenue streams, distribution agreements, tax incentives, and the value of Evoke’s existing library and historical production performance, the facility provides the company with flexible, scalable production financing across multiple genres and platforms. Evoke’s lender comes to the partnership with extensive experience in structured finance, asset-backed lending, and entertainment-related investments.
The deal was spearheaded by Evoke Entertainment CEO Stan Spry, who told us, “This financing marks a transformative moment for Evoke. The backing of a major institutional private credit partner gives us the ability to substantially scale our production operations while continuing to focus on commercially driven, cost-efficient content for the global marketplace.”
The first projects to be financed under Evoke’s facility include a large slate of TV and streaming movies including a Christmas film for Hallmark, a survival thriller for Lifetime, alongside the independent feature films Suburban Kings, Homesick, and Bali Hai.
Founded in 2011, and formerly known as Cartel Entertainment, Evoke Entertainment is a full-service management, production, and finance company that produces more than 20 films and series annually across major platforms including Netflix, Hallmark, Lifetime, Tubi, NBC/Peacock, AMC, and Great American Media. Notable past projects include Creepshow (AMC), Day of the Dead (Syfy), Twelve Forever (Netflix), and the upcoming Breaking Bear for Tubi, to name a few.
Best of Deadline
Sign up for Deadline’s Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
Finance
Livestock Methane in India: Aligning Livelihoods, Systems, and Finance – CPI
Background
India is home to the world’s largest livestock population of 536.76 million, which produces 25% of the world’s milk1. This increase in livestock population leads to increased methane emissions, primarily from enteric fermentation and manure management. As a result, livestock contributes to 58% (BUR 4, 2020) of India’s agricultural methane footprint. However, unlike crop-based emissions, livestock methane is diffuse, biologically driven, and more complex to measure and manage, making it less visible within existing climate finance frameworks.
Current research and policy discussions indicate that while technical mitigation solutions exist through feed improvements and manure management, evidence of their effectiveness in maintaining dairy productivity, animal health, and protecting farmers’ incomes is scattered. This leads to heightened risk perceptions among dairy producers when considering methane mitigation measures. Furthermore, even where the evidence is compelling, the fragmentation of dairy producers precludes their aggregation. Additionally, there is a lack of robust, affordable, and scalable monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems at the grassroots level. These barriers prevent the development of a clear, scalable, and financeable pipeline of livestock methane abatement in India.
The Government of India has actively supported dairy development and livestock health through various schemes and programs introduced by the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying. At the same time, livestock systems in India are deeply embedded within rural livelihoods and socio-economic structures, making the sector a critical component of rural resilience. Consequently, interventions must be context-aware and farmer-centric, with a strong focus on livelihood security and alignment with local values and practices.
With this background, CPI is organizing a roundtable to explore how livestock methane can transition from a technically understood challenge to actionable opportunities on the ground, including both animal feed and manure management. The forum would bring together dairy producer organizations, nodal agencies, think tanks, ecosystem enablers, and financial institutions. It will deliberate upon possible projectized solutions and accompanying financing mechanisms that could be scaled up to address the twin objectives of methane abatement and farmers’ income security.
Finance
Efficient Capital Markets Can Unlock Africa’s Domestic Savings
1
By Samira Mensah, Head of Analytics & Research Africa, S&P Global Ratings
Efficient capital markets can transform Africa’s limited domestic financial assets into investments that spur economic growth. By connecting institutional investors, pension funds and foreign investors, capital markets enhance economic development by increasing the availability of funding for long-term projects.
Efficient domestic capital markets can not only address governments’ significant funding gaps but can also ensure that critical infrastructure developments—such as transportation, energy and telecommunications—are adequately financed, ultimately driving economic growth and employment. Supported by transparent and comparable risk frameworks, efficient domestic capital markets can build confidence among domestic and foreign investors and enhance resilience during periods of global risk aversion.
In our view, African capital markets currently lack two key building blocks.
In our view, African capital markets currently lack two key building blocks. Firstly, with limited exceptions, regulatory frameworks generally lag the International Organization of Securities Commissions’ (IOSCO’s) global standards, which cover listing standards on securities exchanges, development of digital market infrastructure and improvements in the timeliness and transparency of regulatory disclosures of issuers’ financial results, including environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors and green-finance taxonomies.
Some countries, such as South Africa, Kenya, Morocco and Mauritius, are more advanced than others. The misalignment of regulatory frameworks with international norms stems from the gap between adoption and implementation through legislation, which deters international and local investment.
Secondly, the absence of standardized risk assessments leads to information gaps and limits investor participation in primary and secondary bond markets. Credit benchmarks—such as sovereign-yield curves, credit ratings and market-implied risk measures—can help in this regard. They distill complex financial, macroeconomic and institutional information into consistent and comparable signals.
As such, these benchmarks provide a standardized framework for assessing creditworthiness, supporting consistent credit analysis and facilitating decision-making based on transparent and comparable data. They are relevant to investment vehicles with specific investment mandates and may influence the availability of capital, which is crucial for infrastructure projects.
Capital markets can spur economic growth
Capital markets can play a central role in turning domestic savings into productive investments. This is particularly the case in Africa, where development needs are high and incomes are rising from a low base. Additionally, innovative financial technologies, such as fintech platforms, attract more small savings—including money sent home by migrants—that can also fund investments. However, mobilizing domestic savings for investments in local economies remains a significant challenge because many transactions are in cash and outside the financial system.

According to the Africa Finance Corporation (AFC), African sovereign-wealth funds, pension funds, insurers, central banks and commercial banks hold an estimated US$4 trillion in financial assets, representing 130 percent of Africa’s gross domestic product (GDP) in 2025. Long-term institutional capital accounts for $1.1 trillion of the $4 trillion, while African sovereign-wealth funds manage only about $145 billion in assets under management (AUM)—less than 1 percent of global sovereign-wealth funds’ AUM.
Although banking assets comprise the majority of financial assets, they are typically short-term, and banks rely on customer deposits to fund lending activities. This underscores the mismatch between banks’ short-term funding profiles and the economy’s long-term financing needs, particularly in underdeveloped financial systems.
South Africa holds the largest share of Africa’s financial assets, followed by Egypt and Nigeria. South Africa contributes 20-25 percent to Africa’s financial assets. This reflects the country’s outsized role within the continent’s savings pools, its large and mature pension system and its highly developed banking sector. We estimate that the South African banking sector’s assets amount to nearly 100 percent of GDP, while nonbank financial institutions—including pension and insurance funds—account for close to 120 percent of GDP.
Smaller economies that are important regional financial hubs—such as Morocco, Mauritius and Kenya—also play a meaningful role. Aggregate financial assets represent 80 percent to more than 200 percent of these economies’ respective GDPs. Yet a significant portion of this capital does not flow into long-term productive investments.
In several countries, the economic effects of financial assets are muted because large shares are either invested in government securities or placed offshore. For example, the bank-sovereign nexus remains particularly high in Egypt and Kenya, where government securities account for 30-60 percent of banking assets. This contributes to crowding out private investments and increases fiscal-financial linkages. Pension funds are further constrained by specific investment mandates. We understand that only 5 percent of their assets are allocated to alternative investments.
Capital allocation rules could channel domestic savings into real sectors
Regulations across various jurisdictions permit pension funds and sovereign-wealth funds to invest abroad, albeit to varying degrees. For instance, South Africa, which holds the largest share of the continent’s institutional savings, allows its pension funds to invest up to 45 percent offshore, while Nigeria’s regulatory framework limits pension funds’ aggregate offshore exposure to 20-25 percent.
While this facilitates diversification, it also means that a significant portion of domestic savings is invested in fixed-income securities outside Africa, thereby curbing the potential for local economic development. Similarly, when African sovereign-wealth funds invest internationally, their portfolios tend to be diversified away from African assets, further diluting the potential developmental benefits of domestic savings.

Intra-African investment remains limited
However, existing cross-border banking and investment activity points to significant untapped potential. Pan-African banks are important for regional financial connectivity, but their cross-border activities are limited by risk-return considerations, leaving significant potential for greater mobilization of long-term investment. These banking groups’ networks facilitate payments, trade settlement and sovereign financing, but remain only partially leveraged for long-term investment mobilization.
For example, Moroccan banking groups have built extensive footprints across francophone West and Central Africa but their assets outside Morocco account for less than 10 percent of their consolidated assets. Although Nigerian and Kenyan banks support trade finance and corporate lending across regional trade corridors, their home markets hold the lion’s share of their consolidated assets.
Cross-border institutional capital flows remain modest. Pension funds and insurers largely invest domestically—often in government securities—or allocate savings offshore. This reflects regulatory fragmentation, currency risks, shallow capital markets and limited regional investment-vehicle opportunities. Joint investments in infrastructure, productive sectors and regional value chains remain low.
The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) aims at deepening financial integration. By seeking to expand intra-African trade and regional value chains, the AfCFTA aims to increase demand for cross-border financing, risk-sharing and long-term capital. This, however, will require more regional capital-market integrations, harmonized regulations and co-investment platforms that pool African savings.
Leveraging existing pan-African banking networks, regional bond markets, infrastructure funds and blended-finance vehicles could redirect Africa’s capital toward continental growth. This could, in turn, reduce reliance on external financing and strengthen the links between domestic savings and productive investments under the AfCFTA framework.
The catalytic role of MLIs in capital mobilization
Multilateral lending institutions (MLIs) can mobilize long-term funding, provide credit enhancement and support the introduction of new financing structures. To improve capital efficiency and preserve lending capacity, several MLIs have increasingly used balance-sheet optimization tools in recent years, including portfolio risk-sharing and originate-to-distribute-type arrangements.
More broadly, MLIs’ engagement extends beyond direct financing to include policy support, institutional and capacity-building development and infrastructure. These measures may support longer-term improvements in market functioning and economic integration.
Afreximbank’s (African Export–Import Bank’s) push to implement the Pan-African Payment and Settlement System (PAPSS) aims to accelerate regional trade integration under the AfCFTA. The PAPSS seeks to facilitate cross-border settlements in local currencies and reduce trade costs, while the Africa Trade Gateway plans to ease cross-border trade and payment flows. The benefits of these platforms for intraregional trade and transaction costs will likely emerge gradually.
Even so, structural constraints remain. In particular, the limited availability of first-loss concessional capital and uneven risk appetite in the private sector continue to constrain the scale and pace at which blended-finance solutions can be deployed. Although MLIs’ continent-wide initiatives could support the gradual expansion of public-private partnerships and risk-sharing structures, their effectiveness will likely depend on sustained policy support, transaction standardization and stable macro-financial conditions.
Strengthening Africa’s capital markets
We believe the development of capital markets is crucial for the growth of African economies and their private sectors.
We believe the development of capital markets is crucial for the growth of African economies and their private sectors. Unlocking Africa’s abundant funding potential would benefit from establishing effective regulatory regimes that encourage listings without overburdening issuers. Strengthening capital markets by facilitating both debt and equity raisings and listings can broaden market access and deepen market liquidity.
Excluding South Africa, capital markets across Africa remain fragmented and shallow. The Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE), the largest African stock exchange by market capitalization, has a total market capitalization of South African rand (ZAR) 24.6 trillion (about US$1.5 trillion)—more than three times South Africa’s GDP. It ranks among the top 20 stock exchanges worldwide.
In contrast, other exchanges are more modest, as their private sectors’ funding profiles rely primarily on bank loans rather than accessing capital markets. Countries such as Nigeria, Egypt, Côte d’Ivoire, Kenya and Morocco have significant domestic financing sources, but these often come at high costs.
Governments largely define these domestic bond markets because they are the largest issuers, and commercial banks are the primary buyers of government bonds. South Africa has the most liquid and diverse bond market, but government securities dominate local-currency issuances (270 percent of GDP).

Countries such as South Africa and Nigeria have introduced reforms to unlock nonbank domestic capital, notably through pension-fund reforms that allow greater capital allocation to alternative assets. Other reforms aim to develop new financing platforms, facilitate green financing and set benchmarks for how capital markets can price climate and infrastructure-related risks.
In 2022, the African Development Bank (AfDB) issued its inaugural local-currency ZAR200-million green bond, which was listed on the JSE. The JSE is advancing sustainability-linked financial instruments and improving ESG disclosures, aligning African capital markets with global best practices.
In 2026, the JSE launched its nature platform and listed Africa’s first nature-linked performance-based bond—a ZAR2.5-billion issuance by FirstRand Bank, one of the country’s top banks. In 2025, the Rwanda Stock Exchange (RSE) launched its Green Exchange Window (GEW), supported by the Luxembourg Stock Exchange (LuxSE).
Collectively, these labeled debt instruments can act as catalysts for blended-finance structures, mobilizing more private capital.
Governments play a vital role in equalizing access to information and developing deep, transparent sovereign-bond markets. Well-established government-bond yield curves in these markets serve as important pricing benchmarks for corporates and the wider economy. This enhances investor confidence and facilitates more informed investment decisions. Ongoing efforts by governments to increase transparency, provide timely information disclosures and maintain robust regulatory oversight will maximize the benefits of sovereign-bond markets.

Clear and credible credit signals further enhance pricing transparency, enabling investors to better assess risk and return. Greater confidence in valuations supports active participation, improves secondary-market liquidity and strengthens price discovery. Over time, this creates a virtuous cycle—whereby increased participation reinforces market efficiency and resilience, ultimately supporting sustainable economic growth in Africa.
Despite structural shortcomings, domestic investors have increasingly stepped in to meet financing needs. Infrastructure projects are now more often financed through domestic local-currency capital markets and financial institutions, including development-finance institutions. We believe that Africa’s economic integration will be intrinsically linked to more developed domestic capital markets.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Samira Mensah is Managing Director, Research & Analytics Africa, and Country Head for South Africa at S&P Global Ratings, based in Johannesburg. She leads thought leadership and market outreach initiatives across Africa, with a particular focus on African credit markets and Islamic finance. A frequent speaker at industry conferences and contributor to research publications, Samira recently presented at The Africa We Build Summit in Nairobi.
-
New Jersey1 minute agoMercer County, N.J. enacts new policies to limit ICE arrest activity
-
New Mexico8 minutes agoVirgin Galactic partners with nonprofit for menstruation research in space
-
North Carolina16 minutes agoFamilies in Durham say they’re barely getting by; New report says Americans are saving less
-
North Dakota22 minutes agoPublic asked to weigh in on technology use in North Dakota schools
-
Ohio28 minutes agoI-TEAM: FBI searches multiple Stansley Mining properties in NW Ohio
-
Oklahoma34 minutes agoPresident Donald Trump endorses an Oklahoma gubernatorial candidate
-
Oregon40 minutes agoOregon childhood vaccination rates fall to record low as exemptions reach new high
-
Pennsylvania46 minutes agoLawsuit filed over