There has been a flurry of filings regarding the lifting of the ATRO which went into effect upon the filing of the petition. The filings were made by Joseph Mannis and concerns the sale of Angelina's Nouvel LLC which, together with Brad's Mondo Bongo LLC, owns an equal share in Quimicum, the Luxembourg holding company for their ownership interests in the French corporations Chateau Miraval and the winery business, Miraval Provence. Mondo Bongo owns other properties including all or part of Briarcliff.
They've considerably expanded Miraval since acquisition and their post-2014 additions, including the post-Sept. 2016 expansion into champagne production, would likely be considered community property -- a classification they are trying to avoid for purposes of convincing the court and quickly finalizing the sale. While nominally opposing the ex parte application on the grounds that there is no emergency, Anne Kiley's MPA effectively argues for Angelina: Nouvel's disposition is not an issue before the court, the properties are not joint, the court has no jurisdiction over them.
Marc Perrin attributed Miraval Provence's success "to the Pitt-Jolie formula - the Perrin family - the Wine Spectator." No one, least of all the buyer, will want to alter a winning formula. A June 11, 2021 report in Forbes noted that "U.S. rosé sales volume increased by an astounding 1433% from 2010 to 2020." The sale of part of Quimicum is likely a strategic decision to bring in a partner -- "it" likely being a corporation -- who can help Miraval take advantage of the phenomenal growth of rosé and increase its market share. While the petition is still pending and they're not yet out of this, Brad can simply say Jolie-Pitt in the label is for the kids -- which they've been saying since Sept. 2016.
Spiegel went ballistic when Laura Wasser filed their emails together with the Custody Stipulation, but the email exchange with Mannis, most of them terse except where Mannis repeats what is in his MPA, may have been drafted with the knowledge and intent of filing them in court. Mannis' statement that he told Spiegel he could not disclose the terms of the sale because of an NDA deepens suspicions about the supposed exchanges because the lawyer of the buyer's future partner would have to already know the details of the sale. The key negotiations are between Brad and the buyer since they have to know they can work together, not with Angelina even if it is her share of Nouvel that is being bought. There were likely pre-sale changes to the share structure that allows them to retain majority control of Quimicum even after the sale of Nouvel. The valuation given Nouvel also gives the Perrin and Peters families a value for their stakes extrapolating from Nouvel's and they would also have a strong say in any change in who they are partnering with.
It's totally unlikely that a prospective buyer would truly be concerned that Angelina will "shop the financial terms as a negotiating tool for advancing discussions with other potential buyers." Setting aside the fact that such actions would violate the NDA which Angelina would never do, the buyer would be aware of Angelina's professional reputation and philanthropic generosity. The Exclusivity Agreement is only for 30 days so this: "the Buyer previously communicated to me that it has been advised by legal counsel to revoke the agreement if there is a delay in returning the Exclusivity Agreement signed by Ms. Jolie" does not make any sense. That "theoretically" she can shop the terms is such a far-fetched, baseless, hypothetical concern that it cannot be valid grounds for revoking an agreement. Whatever the real reason for the supposed urgency, it isn't what they are saying.
It is absolutely unlikely that "non-compete/non-disparagement arrangements" could be a sticking point in a sale of Angelina's share to anyone including the buyer who did not raise any such concern. The idea that Angelina would want to put up her own winery to compete with Miraval and then want to bad-mouth Miraval is wildly preposterous. The description "unwilling and disregarded business partner" is another hilarious joke. Shareholders in such a lucrative business poised for continued strong returns would be unwilling to sell. Their partners would be only too happy to buy them out and "payments terms of price" would be no object. "Material disagreements between the parties regarding the management of the assets" arise from situations where the parties are faced with poor returns but that couldn't be farther from the case with Miraval. Marc Perrin said, "I've been very lucky to be involved in the Miraval project." In addition to the huge success of the wine business, they have what Perrin called the most beautiful estate in Provence and which Angelina said is an area her family loves. The chateau renovations and their well-timed entry into rosé has been due to, if not quite the unilateral directive, certainly upon the initiative of "Respondent." But the rosy scenario and happy partners is not the picture Mannis needs to convince the court to immediately lift the ATRO.
The filings do state for the record that she wishes to sign the exclusivity agreement but for the ATRO and demonstrates her good faith. That may be all the buyer really wanted and what the filings were designed to accomplish, the nonsensical arguments thrown in perfunctorily.
Spiegel's declaration is succinct without the above dramatic and doubtful flourishes designed to sway the court. So his statement that the motion to lift the ATRO is "for estate planning purposes" gives a straightforward explanation for the filing and the sale.
So how much will they get? Marc Perrin said last year:
"I've been very lucky to be involved in the Miraval project. We met with Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie seven years ago. They own this beautiful property in Provence, which is certainly one of the best and most beautiful estate in Provence. We decided very quickly to become partners together with them to develop this Miraval project. That has been a lot of work but also a lot of luck, and we are very happy about that."Miraval produced around 2 million bottles in 2019, up from 1 million in 2018, likely much higher now. The impressive growth in sales and the brand's prestige, now synonymous with high quality, will allow for a premium valuation in a hot market. Their total investment in Miraval including Chateau renovation and upgrades to wine facilities was about €70M as of 2017. They've since continued to expand total acreage and wine production. Nouvel's sale alone may net them a multiple of their total outlay even without taking into consideration whatever dividends Miraval Provence paid out
The emails and the arguments were crafted solely for the purpose of presenting them in support of the lifting of the ATRO. At least initially, it didn't work as the ex-parte application was denied by Judge Giza on June 30 "for lack of showing of immediate danger / irreparable harm or immediate loss/damage to property." The order was vacated July 1 because the court took note that the case was assigned to Judge Ouderkirk for all purposes. They refiled the ex parte application on 07/08 and it was again denied by Judge Giza for the same reasons after noting Judge Ouderkirk's appointment expired upon the entry of his June 29 Order (Order after Hearing re Child Custody and Statement of Decision per the 07/08 attachments.) Mannis' motion to lift the ATRO is now the subject of a hearing scheduled to take place 09/22/2021.
In Oct. 2019 they had stipulated to extend the Judge's appointment to allow time for Further Judgement on reserved issues to be entered. The stipulation allowed for the appointment to be extended past Dec. 31, 2020 for purposes of hearing any pending RFO through the entry of an Order. The June 29 Order and the further judgement on all reserve issues are likely one and the same. It is very telling that despite the Judgement on status entered April 12, 2019, she signed the stipulation on Sept. 25, 2019 as Angelina Jolie Pitt. It required a deliberate effort because the Judgement -- status restored her name to Angelina Jolie and she never got into the habit of appending Pitt. Eppur Si Muove. And yet she is Angelina Jolie Pitt no matter what they’ve had to file.
Many of the arguments used in the filings are obviously not true because the whole petition isn't true. They've had to endure living a lie and she has spoken of how painful the whole experience has been from the start when the family was broken up and through the imposed safeguards for the children to heal. It is why, as Peter Harvey said, they are working on changing the system so others will be spared the same fate.
Oral arguments on the appeal of the lower court's decision denying the statement of disqualification were heard 07/09 and various media outlets covered the proceedings. The presence of the media meant info from the sealed and confidential filings were not discussed.
USAToday reports: "The brief filed by Jolie's lawyers ahead of Friday's hearing claimed "prejudicial legal error" on Ouderkirk's part, including the judge's refusal to hear testimony from the younger children about their views on custody. Jolie's team also argued the actress was denied "a fair trial" because the judge improperly excluded hearing "evidence relevant to the children’s health, safety, and welfare." This was not discussed during oral arguments.
The oral arguments centered strictly on the issue of the judge's disqualification. Since the Judge's appointment has already expired, the issue is moot. But this whole exercise is part of their efforts to bring about needed changes to the system and the statement of disqualification provides them the means to raise issues that need rulings from the Appellate court.
Per USAT, "Olson also asked for a stay so that Ouderkirk does not issue a final custody ruling before the appellate panel issues its own ruling." Since the Order after Hearing re Child Custody and Statement of Decision was entered on June 29, a stay of the issuance is also already moot.
The Statement of Decision could be cited in arguments for a ruling on the "prejudicial legal error." If the Appellate court rules that Judge Ouderkirk should be disqualified, the June 29 order will be vacated since it came after the statement of disqualification was filed and the hearings will have to be held again. They had asked for a stay of the hearings last December but it was denied by the Appellate Court.
USAToday: "As the hearing closed, Olson pleaded for the court's decision to be made public." They want the facts widely disseminated to counter misinformation and to help other families.
Per USAT, "Olson also asked for a stay so that Ouderkirk does not issue a final custody ruling before the appellate panel issues its own ruling." Since the Order after Hearing re Child Custody and Statement of Decision was entered on June 29, a stay of the issuance is also already moot.
The Statement of Decision could be cited in arguments for a ruling on the "prejudicial legal error." If the Appellate court rules that Judge Ouderkirk should be disqualified, the June 29 order will be vacated since it came after the statement of disqualification was filed and the hearings will have to be held again. They had asked for a stay of the hearings last December but it was denied by the Appellate Court.
USAToday: "As the hearing closed, Olson pleaded for the court's decision to be made public." They want the facts widely disseminated to counter misinformation and to help other families.
