Random Fuzzy
Angelina's 17-page cross-complaint is nominally a further public defense of her against the claims in Brad's lawsuit on top of what was in Nouvel's 61-page cross-complaint, but it is more crucially an opening up of details on what transpired on the plane. The Tampere exhibit was an expression of Brad's guilt, self loathing and remorse. This cross complaint reveals what he was tortured about.
The "non- disclosure agreement that would have contractually prohibited her from speaking outside of court about Pitt’s physical and emotional abuse of her and their children" is something new which the FBI leak allowed them to add.
Angelina's Luxembourg lawyer, Laurent Schummer's letter filed at the same time as the Oct., 2022
cross complaint but supposedly dated 6 April 2021 stated
The deal that was struck may be summarised as follows:
-
Total exit value: 54.5 MUSD, with 46 MUSD payable immediately and 8.5 MUSD over 6years;
-
7MUSD loan from Mr Pitt to my client to be repaid from the initial cash portion;
-
A non-disparagement agreement relating to the wine business;
-
Closing April.
My client stays committed to the exit deal and has done all things possible to see the agreement come through. She was therefore upset and hurt to learn that on my telephone calls with you and Christophe Salin on 18 and 26 March 2021 (and the period in between, with calls nearly each other day}, you conveyed the wish of Mr Pitt and the Perrin family to step back from the agreement until an undefined future point.
Most disturbing of all was the reasoning given, and the reference made to recent reports that during sealed legal proceedings currently taking place in California, my client had submitted offers of proof relating to domestic violence.
Setting aside the fact that the legal proceedings in question were not initiated by my client; it would be entirely inappropriate for this to have any bearing on the sale of my client's stake in Miraval.
The position taken could even be seen as coming close to an attempt to influence the course of future events relating to those or other proceedings, by suggesting that any public knowledge of information regarding the family situation would be a reason for abrogating the agreement. As you will be aware, financial autonomy is an extremely sensitive issue in cases of this nature. This suggestion has therefore caused my client acute distress and concern.
So per this letter, there was supposedly already an agreement on price and a non-disparagement agreement related to the wine business and it was set to close in April, 2021 but the offer of proof became an issue.
Joe Mannis' July 5, 2021 declaration filed with the
July 8, 2021 ex parte application makes no mention of any previous agreement or any issue tying the sale with the divorce proceeding:
On July 1, 2021, I and my partner, James Simon, had a scheduled telephone conversation with Mr. Spiegel to attempt to informally resolve this matter without the need for a hearing. I informed Mr. Spiegel that the proposed sale was subject to an NDA and I could not disclose any terms. I expressed my opinion that Respondent’s use of the ATROs as a means to block the sale is a “rearguard action" because other than the existence of the ATROS Respondent has no legitimate/legal basis to block Petitioner’s sale of her separate property membership interest in Nouvel, LLC. Mr. Spiegel stated he would get back to me.
Schummer's July 5, 2021 declaration filed with the July 8, 2021 ex parte application was not cognizant of the agreement discussed in his letter supposedly written two months earlier on the issues he listed as obstacles.
"major obstacles to a complete buyout of Nouvel was payments terms of price and non-compete/non- disparagement arrangements."
The non-compete/ non-disparagement above relates to Miraval's wine business. It made no connection between any obstacles to the sale and offers of proof etc. in the divorce to which his declaration was being submitted.
There was no mention of there having been any agreement in buying Nouvel in Lance Spiegel's June 29, 2021 declaration attached to the same July 8, 2021 ex parte filing
I am familiar with all pleadings filed in this case‚ all discovery conducted in.this case and all orders led in this case. The Petition for dissolution was led September 19, 2016, listing the date of the parties marriage, August 14, 2014. On her Declaration of Disclosure Petitioner lists her ownership of Nouvel LLC, a California limited liability company formed in 2008 as her separate property. It is my understanding that Nouvel LLC owns shares of Quimicum S.a.r.l., a Luxembourg corporation, which owns an interest in the French corporations Chateau Miraval SA and Miraval Provence SNC. Respondent owns an LLC, formed prior to marriage, which owns shares in Quimicum S.a.r.I.. I have reviewed both Petitioner's and Respondent's Preliminary Declarations of Disclosure. Both parties list the above referenced LLCs as their separate property.
On June 18, 2021, I received an email from Petitioner's counsel, Joe Mannis, asking me to "confirm [his] belief that the ATROS are no longer in force given the length of Separation of the parties, etc." Thereafter I discussed with Mr. Mannis, and he indicated that Petitioner wished to "lift" the ATROs for estate planning purposes. Mr. Mannis also informed me that he would send a proposed stipulation to me. On June 25, I asked Mr. Mannis if his proposed stipulation had any implications on Petitioner trying to sell assets in France, and Mr. Mannis responded Petitioner was exploring sales involving the French assets.
There was no mention of any prior agreement or any lingering interest from Brad in buying Nouvel in the purported June 25, 2021 email exchange between Mannis and Spiegel attached to the July 8, 2021 filing. Only that there had been "the discussion".
From: Joseph Mannis
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2021 2:31 PM
To: Lance Spiegel
Cc: James M. Simon ; Neal ; Anne C. Kiley
Subject: RE: Question
Dear Lance,
Yes. As I am sure you know‚ the discussion of the sale of AJ’s interest to BP have been terminated. Hence, AJ is exploring third party sales. If Brad is intending to oppose the Iifting of aII the ATROS, we will be making an ex parte application within the next few business days to vacate all ATROS (if any are still in effect). Please advise. I hope this will not be necessary, but that is up to Brad.
Very truly yours‚
JOSEPH MANNIS
Founding Partner
HERSH MANNIS LLP
From: Lance Spiegel
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2021 11:27 AM
To: Joseph Mannis
Subject: Question
Does the proposed stipulation have any implications regarding France such as AJ potentially trying to sell to a third-party?
Lance Spiegel
YOUNG, SPIEGEL, HILLMAN & HOSP, LLP
There was no prior mention that SAS Familles Perrin (“Familles Perrin”) was interested in buying Nouvel with Brad. It first appeared in Nouvel's cross-complaint filed
Sept. 6, 2022. Interestingly, Marc Perrin is quoted in the same cross-complaint as saying he had
“been very careful (for the last 9 years) not to be involved [at the Quimicum level] and honestly I much prefer to stay that way. Experience shows that it was a good decision.”
Nouvel is of course precisely at the Quimicum level.
The statement issued after the Brad's First Amended Complaint was filed in
June 3, 2022 stated: "after multiple offers to her ex-husband" -- it did not include Famille Perrin. No connection was made between those offers and the offer of proof, or any demands of a non-disparagement clause in the statement issued .
People:
a source close to the situation tells PEOPLE.
"Mr. Pitt's lawsuit against Ms. Jolie is an extension of a false narrative, and the truth of the situation has still not been made public," an insider now tells PEOPLE. "After the events that led to Ms. Jolie filing for divorce and her years devoted to caring for their children, Ms. Jolie and the children have not been able to return to the property, and she made the difficult decision to sell her stake in the business. After making multiple offers to her ex-husband, and knowing the business will be inherited by their children, she found a business partner with experience in the alcohol industry."
The source adds, "It's unfortunate that after she properly and legally exited the business, Mr. Pitt is entangling her in multiple lawsuits."
The family's full experience with domestic violence and abuse was not yet publicly known, only that there was an incident involving Maddox. After the FBI leak first reported by Puck News on
Aug. 15, 2022 the cat was out of the bag and they decided to use it. Their story explaining the sale evolved accordingly.
What seems consistent is that a deal with Shefler was reached by around mid-June, 2021. How long they had been looking for a strategic partner isn't clear but it would have to have been at least a few months. Nouvel's cross-complaint mentions that Miraval Provence had explored a deal with LVMH.
They told Nouvel that Miraval Provence had undertaken certain limited trademark registrations on a temporary basis because of a potential transaction with luxury goods manufacturer LVMH, but that transaction never actually materialized.
Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton SE is the world's largest luxury goods company. Its wines and spirits brands include Moët & Chandon, Krug, Veuve Clicquot, Hennessy and Château d’Yquem. It also owns
Guerlain. LVMH had sales of 5,974 M€ in 2021and is controlled by Bernard Arnault, its co-founder, chairman, and chief executive. Shefler's Stoli, while much smaller, may have offered them a better deal in view of the complications.
The story surrounding the sale kept evolving as they fine tuned the wrangling to their needs and as what they were able to say changed.
Angelina's cross-complaint:
Pitt filed this lawsuit seeking to reassert control over Jolie's financial life and compel her to rejoin her ex-husband as a frozen-out business partner, Pitt forced Jolie to publicly defend herself on these issues for the first time.
Why this non-disparagement clause was so important to Pitt—and an abusive and controlling deal-breaker for Jolie—goes to the very heart of this case and can be fully explained only by understanding what happened on that plane on September 14, 2016.
They could have included the non-disparagement clause without giving more details than was already in the FBI leak. They went further because it helps pave the way for their eventual opening up. It allows details of the abuse towards the children redacted from the FBI report to already be out in public instead of something Brad has to reveal in a confession. It is easier to make a blanket admission of the abuse detailed earlier than to personally give details of that abuse. They know there is no way to understand the children's estrangement from Brad and the long tortuous process back without revealing the details of his behavior towards them -- whether or not they go into a discussion of trauma. This way they can focus more on the constructive, addressing the causes of domestic violence, recovery, their experience with the system and whatever systemic improvements they realized were needed.
News of the cross complaint was first reported by the New York Times as Breaking News. It is highly unusual for the NYTimes to get the jump on a new filing in their case which it has not closely followed. The editors deemed the story important enough to place on Page A17 as part of the spread in the main news section alongside stories on Musk's Twitter deal, Trumps's request that the Supreme Court intervene in his Mar A Lago case and the case against the far right Oath Keepers. The NYT had so much lead time on the story they were even able to make repeated attempts to contact Brad's reps before they first posted. Anne Kiley gave them a statement much later.
Lawyers for Mr. Pitt did not immediately return several phone calls and emails seeking his response on Tuesday. In 2016, unnamed people close to Mr. Pitt were quoted in various publications saying that he had not been abusive toward his children.
I strongly suspect that the NYTimes was given the story -- maybe a copy of the cross-complaint as soon as it was filed. The incident had been a very closely guarded secret and a very sensitive subject. They wanted the cross complaint with the details they were revealing to be written accurately and intelligently. All the other sites that usually get first whiff of a filing would have twisted it. The NYTimes did a good job. It was a mutually beneficial arrangement. I had speculated that when they do open up, that like Angelina's on her mastectomy, it could be as an op-ed in the NYTimes.
British Vogue (self) Q&A for World Refugee Day 2020
"After choosing to separate from your partner and children’s father, actor Brad Pitt, how have you sustained a healthy environment for your children?"
"I separated for the wellbeing of my family. It was the right decision. I continue to focus on their healing. Some have taken advantage of my silence, and the children see lies about themselves in the media, but I remind them that they know their own truth and their own minds."
She has been silent because she wanted to protect him while he worked his way back with the children. Her silence had been absolute. She never gave so much as a hint of the secret she was keeping. Stricter than any clause could be.
As the mental health experts have testified, they've now come through the other side. Brad's exhibit was a signal that he is ready to talk about his guilt, his missteps, hubris, "those I may have hurt and those moments I have just gotten wrong." His fragile emotional state on display in his pieces hints at why Angelina was so protective of him.
They have given many signals that they are ready to open up about alcohol and abusive behavior, but it isn't clear if they will discuss trauma. The cross-complaint notably does not mention Brad's remarks "That kid looks like a fucking Columbine kid" and "[redacted is] gonna kill someone" which they never wanted to be publicly known.
As with all the other wrangling, there was some truth, some stretching of the truth in the cross complaint
It states on their purchase of Miraval
The entire purchase transaction was meticulously documented in writing with the advice of lawyers from at least three countries.
In 2013, the companies through which Jolie and Pitt held their interests in Chateau Miraval—Nouvel, LLC and Mondo Bongo, LLC—entered into a further written agreement delineating the rights and responsibilities they owed one another.
They even have attorneys for their non-Miraval business and there, too, their property and financial dealings were memorialized in writing. Again, the agreement was documented by counsel.
Not once in any of these documents does Jolie, Pitt, or any of their representatives reference the alleged consent right Pitt now claims to have.
He claims he and Jolie granted each other this secret consent right through their “actions and conduct.”
Again, Pitt’s entire case against Jolie is premised largely on his supposed unwritten, unspoken agreement to always give the other a consent or veto right over any sale of the other’s interest in the chateau and winery no matter the circumstances and no matter whether they even remained a couple
Pitt did not respond with a counteroffer or otherwise contend that Jolie did not have the authority to sell; nor did he claim (as he does now in this case) that he and Jolie had some secret, unspoken, unwritten right to buy the other’s interest and to bar the other from selling their interest to anyone else forever.
It clearly states that they have comprehensive written agreements covering all their holdings, especially their holdings in Miraval. The sale of Nouvel to Shefler would have necessitated several new legal agreements between them. All their agreements are drafted by their lawyers and reviewed by their managers and there is no claim that any of their written were not followed. Brad's complaint's claim that they had an unwritten, unspoken agreement is only for public consumption as part of the tangle of lawsuits. (I imagine that Brad is shouldering almost all of their legal costs and he must have racked up a very large tab.)
The December 2013 agreement on the sale and transfer of 100 shares of Quimicum as a gift from Brad to Angelina and the subject of a Luxembourg lawsuit was attached in one of the filings.
MONDO BONGO, LLC
·AND-
NOUVEL,LLC
AGREEMENT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF SHARES IN
QUIMICUM S.A
R.L.
PREAMBLE:
A. The Seller holds six hundred(600)shares with a nominal value of one hundred and fifty-
two euros {EUR 152.-) each in the share capital of the Company. The Buyer holds four
hundred (400) shares with a nominal value of one hundred and fifty-two euros (EUR 152.-
) each In the share capita! of the Company.
B. The Seller now wishes to sell one hundred(100) shares of the Company to the Purchaser and the Purchaser wishes to purchase these one hundred (100) shares from the Seller, subject to the terms and conditions set out hereafter.
-
SALE AND PURCHASE OF THE SALE SHARES
In accordance with this Agreement
-
(a) the Seller agrees to sell the Sale Shares with full title guarantee to the Buyer; and
-
(b) the Buyer agrees to buy the Sale Shares with full title guarantee from the Seller,
in each case, on and with effect from the Signing Date, free from any Encumbrance and
together with all rights attaching to the Sale Shares on or after the Signing Date, Including
the right to receive all dividends or distributions declared, paid or made on or after the
Signing Date.
-
PURCHASE PRICE
-
3.1 Amount
The Purchase Price Is one euro (EUR 1.-)
-
3.2 Payment method
The Buyer must pay the Purchase Price in cash on the Signing Date.
The Buyer was represented by Terry Bird and the Seller by Cynthia Pett Dante.
The Luxembourg lawsuit to void the sale and transfer was filed Sept. 21, 2021. The same date as Mannis' declaration attached to his and Kiley's efforts to make sure that the S&O to lift the ATROs originally filed Sept. 8, 2021 was signed by the court before the Sept. 22, 2021 hearing. The lawsuit does not allege that there was any violation of the agreement. While they claim the €1 was never paid, the argument is that the sale lacked "cause," i.e. a benefit to Brad.
From Nouvel's application for Discovery that was granted by the court in a separate proceeding.
In 2021, Mondo Bongo suddenly sued Nouvel and Quimicum in Luxembourg seeking to annul the 2013 10% Quimicum Share Transfer on the basis that the transfer lacked “cause”—in civil law, a benefit or goal. (ECF No. 4,
Ex. L-5.)
They did not cite or show any of their other agreements because it would expose the truth that they are acting together and the wrangling are just a means to an end they are unable to disclose publicly -- and that includes everything in the petition.
Brad said in his new interview with
Vogue
"When we first got here, I mean, I never thought about having a winery either! I just wanted a beautiful base in this area and it happened to have a winery."
contradicts his own complaint's main contention that Miraval was always intended to be a business. From the amended complaint:
Miraval was in need of renovation when Pitt and Jolie purchased it in 2008,
particularly if the grounds were to support a viable wine business and serve as the flagship
property used to advertise and promote that business
a claim repeated in Angelina's cross complaint and in her email further below
Jolie hoped that the investment would prove fruitful, both by providing a loving home for their six children and by growing the accompanying winery into a successful family business that would provide long-term financial security for their children and their own future families.
The cross complaint makes no mention of Brad drinking or being drunk on the plane. It states:
Throughout the long, overnight flight, Pitt was physically and emotionally abusive to Jolie and their children, who were then between the ages of 8 and 15. After that flight, for her family’s well-being, Jolie decided to file for divorce.
Coming on top of the traumatic breakup of their family and the years spent trying to heal their family—during which time she never spoke publicly about the events that led to their separation—Jolie could not take any more abuse. In an effort to preserve her own mental health and well-being, Jolie decided to turn over the negotiations to her designated representatives and let them decide how best to finalize any sale.
By 2019, Jolie was growing increasingly uncomfortable with continuing to participate in an alcohol-related business, given the impact of Pitt’s acknowledged problem of alcohol abuse on their family.
Resigned that Pitt would not share control of the winery or distribute any profits, concerned about participating in a business that was associated with such painful and traumatic memories for her and their children, and seeking financial independence, Jolie concluded that she needed to sell her interest in Chateau Miraval.
They are able to say "traumatic" but still short of a full acknowledgment of the “lasting physical and mental trauma as a result of the assault" as quoted by the DC judge's order on Jane Doe's request.
Outside of mentioning "Pitt’s acknowledged problem of alcohol abuse" it did not dwell on it. Unlike Nouvel's cross-complaint, it did not mention the Harvey Weinstein or Make It Right debacles. Nouvel's cross-complaint came down much harder on Brad.
Since Brad has taken steps to remain sober since 2016 and the mental health experts are apparently satisfied that the family has healed, rather than grow "increasingly uncomfortable" about an alcohol-related business, it should logically go the other way. But the children's association of Miraval with Brad's breakdown apparently remains intractable.
Harpers Bazaar Nov. 2019
HARPER'S BAZAAR: We recognize in these photos the free-spirited, bold side of you we know from old. Is that a fair characterization?
ANGELINA JOLIE: My body has been through a lot over the past decade, particularly the past four years, and I have both the visible and invisible scars to show for it. The invisible ones are harder to wrestle with. Life takes many turns. Sometimes you get hurt, you see those you love in pain, and you can’t be as free and open as your spirit desires. It’s not new or old, but I do feel the blood returning to my body.
NBC Today, March, 2022
“I think once you’re exposed to this system, whoever you are, once you’re exposed to it and you realize how unbelievably broken this system is, you have to do something to improve it.”
“My children’s health is my priority at this moment.” “And my focus for the last few years has been to help my family and … to focus on helping change laws to protect other families and other women and focus on their stories.”
The cross-complaint states
To this day, they have all been unable to return to Chateau Miraval due to its association with these traumatic events, including the children who are now legal adults.
Jolie requests that the Court declare that no such agreement exists, and that Jolie’s sale of Nouvel to Stoli’s subsidiary is final...To move on from the winery and chateau, to have financial independence from her ex-husband, and to finally have some form of peace and closure to this deeply painful and traumatic chapter of her and their children’s lives.
Jolie hoped that the investment would prove fruitful, both by providing a loving home for their six children and by growing the accompanying winery into a successful family business that would provide long-term financial security for their children and their own future families.
Even then, Jolie was cognizant that Pitt’s share of the winery would economically benefit their children and be part of their inheritance. Jolie’s intent was for her advisors to help her either close the deal with Pitt or find a third party who could add value to the winery.
Stoli seemed a perfect solution in that, through its capitalization, experience and networks, Stoli Group could readily increase the prestige, distribution, and profitability of Chateau Miraval, financially benefiting Pitt and ultimately their children.
Since the children are unable to return to Miraval, that seems to raise questions about how they will eventually inherit and benefit from the property as Angelina hopes. The sale of Nouvel will not bring them any "peace and closure." Their problem is with Miraval's association with Brad's alcohol-fueled breakdown. The solution is to remove that association entirely.
The problem with invented scenarios is that it all doesn't gel. The wrangling world is at odds with the real world. As Angelina's purported statement after the amended complaint said, "Mr. Pitt's lawsuit against Ms. Jolie is an extension of a false narrative, and the truth of the situation has still not been made public." Until it is, they have to resort to awkward contortions trying to explain actions that can only be explained by the truth. That includes everything designed for the wrangling including Angelina's purported email first quoted in Brad's complaint and attached to a separate filing.
Whoever wrote it, it was obviously
not Angelina. The spelling -- centred, behaviour -- is UK/European. The phrasing is odd and very different from Angelina's published essays.
It starts by saying "You know how much I wanted to buy Miraval, as a family business" which right off the bat signals that the email isn't true. Brad's recent comments to Vogue emphasized that Miraval was not bought to be a business and that the winery was incidental. They're not trying to hide that the email was written just to be used in the wranglings. It does serve the added purpose of making clear that the sale is not connected to the petition or their relationship, that it is centered on the business. And that she thought she would grow old in Miraval with Brad.
: AJ •
Subject: Miraval
Date: January 21, 2021 at 2:02 PM
To: WB P
Dear Brad
I am putting this in writing so not to get emotional.
I have reached a painful decision, with a heavy heart, that I want to share with you.
You know how much I wanted to buy Miraval, as a family business, as a place for us to visit together, and as a place to hold
diplomatic and humanitarian meetings. Above all, it is the place we brought the twins home to, and where we were married over a
plaque in my mother’s memory. A place that held the promise of what could be and where I thought I would grow old. Even now
impossible to write this without crying. I will treasure my memories of what it was a decade ago.
But it is also the place that marks the beginning of the end of our family - and a business that is centred around alcohol.
I have tried to stay open to the business, to see it as something that could be positive for our family, and have therefore not walked
away. I had hoped somehow it could become something that held us together and we found light and peace. I see now how you have
really wanted me out and will most likely be pleased to receive this email.
In the last four years I have seen lots of inconsiderate behaviour, money spent in ways that I would not have approved, and decisions
made that I was not consulted on. I’ve been hurt by decisions that have been made that show no interest in sharing the business or
changing it fundamentally into something that would be healthier for our children.
Most of all, I was shaken by the recent imagery that was released to sell the alcohol. I find it irresponsible and not something that I
would want the children to see. It reminded me of painful times.
All of this tells me very clearly that the vision you and the others in the business have, is not one I can share. I do not feel I can be
involved, publicly or privately, in a business based on alcohol, when alcoholic behavior harmed our family so deeply.
In order for me to remain in the business, there would need to be drastic changes that I do not think would be agreed to. The business
is therefore past the point of anything that I could be part of, morally and for the good of our family.
I see two ways forward.
What might be best for our whole family would be an outright sale. I would completely support you in seeking to sell the company
and move away from this hard and painful chapter in our lives.
The alternative is that a complete buy out of my share in the property and business by you, the Perrin family or your associates.
In either case, I believe we need to move forward in order to heal and focus on where our family comes together, and where we have
positive associations. And to do so quickly.
I hope we can reach a decision on this privately, as I do not wish to expose private family issues, or harm the business or the families
involved. The Perrin family have been nothing but lovely.
I cannot begin to express how upsetting it is for me to have to reach this point. Your dream for your relationship to the business and
the alcohol is your own and you’ve made it painfully clear.
I wish you all the best with the business, and sincerely hope that the children feel differently about Miraval when they are older, and
visit you there. But Miraval for me died September 2016, and everything I have seen in the years since has sadly confirmed that.
I will write separately and privately to Marc Perrin, without these personal details, to inform him of my decision.
I hope to receive an answer from you both within the next two weeks, as I have been very patient until this point in continuing to
invest and support the business, and would prefer not to have to pursue other routes to divest myself of my share in it.
Regretfully
Angie
The "recent imagery that was released to sell the alcohol" the letter is referring to.
Lachlan Bailey loves Brad. He reposted photos from the 2019 GQ spread over a dozen times.
And they both love him. He also shot the photo Angelina chose for her Instagram account which was originally part of the Guerlain shoot.
The quote "Miraval for me died in September, 2016" is contradicted by what she said during the HFPA press junket for
First They Killed My Father in September, 2017
Blick HFPA interview September, 2017 for
First They Killed My Father:
Q Your winery Miraval in France produces very good wines. Will you continue to do so in the future?
AJ "Absolutely. Soon a new wine from us will be on the market. The Miraval Estate is something particularly beautiful for our family. We have a deep connection with it. I hope that this will continue to be the case."
The line "I see now that you have really wanted me out and will likely be pleased to receive this email." is contradicted by all the mentions of her in Miraval's site and by the Perrins.
The email exists to support the cross-complaint's allegations that Angelina was excluded from Miraval's affairs, supports the scenario for the sale, and drives home that she is referring to the business and alcohol.
The cross-complaint states that
on March 12, 2021, in the couple’s child custody case, Jolie submitted under seal (meaning no member of the public could see any portion of it except the document title) an “Offer of Proof and Authority re Testimony Regarding Domestic Violence.” This filing apparently enraged Pitt, and in response to that submission, on March 26, 2021, Pitt’s team notified Jolie’s team that Pitt was “stepping back” from the Miraval deal.
That the cross-complaint explained what "under seal" means in a
court filing is an acknowledgment that it will be read by many outside the court with no knowledge of legal terms. In reality,
all of the wrangling is for outside consumption.
An offer of proof is used primarily with an appeal in mind.
Code §354 (a)). An offer of proof is a statement that explains the “substance, purpose, and relevance” of the excluded evidence (Id). If your case ends up on appeal, the court of appeal may need the offer to determine not just whether error occurred but also whether any error was prejudicial.
There were two such Offers of Proof and authority filed by Petitioner:
03/12/2021 Miscellaneous ((UNDER SEAL) Offer of Proof and authority in support thereof RE: testimony regarding domestic violence )
03/12/2021 Miscellaneous ((UNDER SEAL)-Offer of Proof and Authority in support thereof RE: testimony of minor children )
Reference was made to both during arguments for the appeal of Judge Ouderkirk's disqualification but the Appellate court did not discuss them in its decision. They are likely part of Angelina's efforts at reforming the system.
I wrote previously
Olson/ Bley’s 05/24/21 filings quoted by the AP are part of their reply and opposition to Spiegel/ Boutrous' request for judicial notice. Two of their four filings are marked *CONFIDENTIAL - may not be examined without court order" which is considerably stricter than a filing under seal. What the AP could read was only a small fraction of what was filed. In it, they asserted that the Judge "denied Ms. Jolie a fair trial, improperly excluding her evidence." Specifically, that the Judge "refused to hear the minor teenagers' input" and had "failed to adequately consider" the California Family Code section on a party who has perpetrated domestic violence. The section enumerates factors the court must consider in determining whether the presumption (that an award of sole or joint physical or legal custody to a such a person is detrimental to the best interest of the child) has been overcome. These include whether the perpetrator has completed a baterer's treatment program, alcohol or drug abuse counseling, and parenting class.
There is no reason for Brad to be upset over the filing of the Offer of Proof and Authority
RE Testimony
regarding Domestic Violence. As explained above, it is testimony regarding the California Family Code and just from what is publicly known, Brad checks all the required boxes.
He has been working individually with therapists including
Alyce LaViolette, MS, MFT, "is expected to testify about her individual work with Respondent as well as the children" (Anger Management and Domestic Violence Counseling for Survivors and Perpetrators)
has undergone group therapy with Alcoholics Anonymous.
And Wasser mentioned in her Dec. 1, 2016 email to Spiegel
"We also propose that the parties participate in joint sessions with a trauma specialist so that they may learn how to best support and interact with their children given their current state."
They are simply taking advantage of the fact that no one could read the sealed filing and the title could be misconstrued by the same people who don't know what "under seal" means to mean that it was proof
of instead of
regarding domestic violence. The FBI leak provided them with something already known that they could claim Brad wanted hidden.
As an explanation for why there was no internal sale between them, it is slightly better, i.e. not as easily refutable, as Brad's complaint's attempt to blame it on Judge Ouderkirk's temporary ruling.
The other letter attached to one of Angelina's filings is Laurent Shummer's 6 April 2021 to Brad's lawyer cited previously. It is in support of the above:
I hereby wish to remind that after many weeks of negotiation and discussion, we reached final
agreement on 25 February 2021 for the full sale of my client Angelina Jolie's stake in Miraval to Brad
Pitt and the Perrin family.
The deal that was struck may be summarised as follows:
-
Total exit value: 54.5 MUSD, with 46 MUSD payable immediately and 8.5 MUSD over 6years;
-
7MUSD loan from Mr Pitt to my client to be repaid from the initial cash portion;
-
A non-disparagement agreement relating to the wine business;
-
Closing April.
Weekly calls on each Monday were initiated to progress the deal. We understand that, although not a condition to the deal, the relevant bank financing has been secured as well.
My client welcomed this agreement. As you know, as sad and painful as this loss is to her personally, she is no longer able to bear the emotional connection to a place that marked the end of her marriage.
My client stays committed to the exit deal and has done all things possible to see the agreement come through. She was therefore upset and hurt to learn that on my telephone calls with you and Christophe Salin on 18 and 26 March 2021 (and the period in between, with calls nearly each other day}, you conveyed the wish of Mr Pitt and the Perrin family to step back from the agreement until an undefined future point.
Most disturbing of all was the reasoning given, and the reference made to recent reports that during sealed legal proceedings currently taking place in California, my client had submitted offers of proof relating to domestic violence.
Setting aside the fact that the legal proceedings in question were not initiated by my client; it would be entirely inappropriate for this to have any bearing on the sale of my client's stake in Miraval.
The position taken could even be seen as coming close to an attempt to influence the course of future events relating to those or other proceedings, by suggesting that any public knowledge of information regarding the family situation would be a reason for abrogating the agreement. As you will be aware, financial autonomy is an extremely sensitive issue in cases of this nature. This suggestion has therefore caused my client acute distress and concern.
Furthermore, information regarding a serious family situation that led to the filing for divorce is not new to the parties concerned. The only new development is the presentation of evidence to a private court. My client has not spoken publicly about the events that led to the ending of her marriage in four and a half years, and has no intention of speaking. The position taken is therefore insensitive at the very least. It is extremely distressing to my client that the primary if not the sole concern that has been expressed is not the health and well-being of family members, but how this situation might affect a business.
We were therefore expecting to receive your firm confirmation that you intend to proceed with the sale in April as agreed. Instead, on 3 April 2021 I received a phone from Frank Le Mentec setting out, on behalf of both Mr Pitt and Marc Perrin, a wish to renegotiate the terms of the agreement in a way that would defer payment of a substantial portion of the funds due to my client and further extend completion of the agreement.
We are waiting to receive your proposal in writing as requested. In the meantime, you will understand why this new proposal, unless clarified, could compound the impression of a wish to put undue and inappropriate pressure on my client.
We look forward to your urgent and prompt written response clarifying your position.
We note however that any delay or suspension of completing the deal or any attempt to change the terms thereof at this stage would, to the least, constitute 'culpa in contrahendo' if not actually a breach for non-performance of a legally valid and binding agreement.
The cross-complaint states
On June 2, 2021—after the expiration of Jolie’s final offer—Pitt sent a revised agreement that for the first time laid bare why Pitt had withdrawn from the negotiations in March, after the agreement in principle had initially been reached. For the first time, Pitt demanded that Jolie be bound by a broad non-disparagement clause that would prohibit Jolie from discussing outside of court any of Pitt’s personal conduct toward her or the family. Combined with Pitt’s pre-existing demand that he have the right to hold $8.5 million of the $54.4 million purchase price for four years, the new clause created an unconscionable gag order over Jolie enforced by an $8.5 million hold-back.
"broad" because it was to be in addition to "A non-disparagement agreement relating to the wine business" indicated in Shummer's letter above.
There was no mention in the June 30 and July 8, 2021
filings -- including Lance Spiegel's letter and declaration attached thereto -- of Brad's supposed June 2, 2021 revised agreement with a demand for a broad non-disparagement agreement. As noted previously, there was no mention in Schummer's July 5, 2021 declaration filed July 8, 2021, that there was already the agreement claimed in his letter
dated April 2021 but filed over a year later.
I explored with Me Franck Le Mentec, Mr. Pitt's legal representative on
behalf of his LLC interest, possible buyout scenarios. In this regard we had many
discussions and exchanged many proposals for a buyout, but the major obstacles to a
complete buyout of Nouvel was payments terms of price and non-compete/non-
disparagement arrangements.
After approximately two years of discussions regarding a working
arrangement or buyout as between the parties did not result in any agreement, l explored
on behalf of Ms. Jolie/Nouvel a sale of Nouvel to a third party. These discussions led to a
proposal from a third-party buyer for the acquisition of all of Ms. Jolie's interest in Nouvel,
LLC, on terms acceptable to Ms. Jolie. As part of this transaction. the buyer has provided
Ms. Jolle an exclusivity agreement to sign and immediately return to provide the buyer the
sole right to acquire Nouvel on the agreed terms after the buyer completes its due diligence
during the thirty-day period of the exclusivity agreement. The buyer communicated to me
that immediate execution of the exclusivity agreement is a material term of the deal because
otherwise Ms. Jolie could theoretically shop the financial terms as a negotiating tool for
advancing discussions with other potential buyers.
The cross complaint says Shefler paid $67M for Nouvel. It's interesting how they arrived at that amount considering the cross complaint claims
Despite Jolie having the exact same ownership interest as Pitt (50- 50), he started excluding Jolie from any meaningful input in the management and direction of the business. Over time he completely froze her out, and largely cut her off from receiving information about its finances.
And Brad's amended complaint claims
Contrary to Jolie’s disclosure to the divorce court and commercial practice, Shefler and Jolie apparently
orchestrated the purported sale without undertaking any due diligence.
In Keith Hummels' filing in the § 1782 case:
Pitt now runs Chateau Miraval as if it were his personal fiefdom, pugnaciously refusing all reasonable efforts to resolve the deadlock at Quimicum; to allow Nouvel or Nouvel’s current owner, Tenute de Mondo, to get even basic information about Chateau Miraval’s business; or to allow them to share in its governance on an equal footing with Pitt and Mondo Bongo.
Since they claim that neither Angelina nor Shefler had Miraval's financials and no due diligence was done, how then did they know to agree to $67M?
The amended complaint claimed
Shefler’s interest in Miraval was, however, longstanding. Shefler, through Tenute
del Mondo, seized on news of Pitt and Jolie’s September 2016 divorce filing to make a bid for
the property and wine business the next month, in October 2016. At that time, Tenute del
Mondo, with Shefler’s backing, formally offered €60 million for Château Miraval S.A. Shefler
also offered a bizarre sweetener for Pitt: a €50 million private jet on “very attractive terms,” the
discounted price of €23 million. Miraval officials rejected the offer, and negotiations did not
continue.
$67M for half of Miraval seems like an improvement over the €87M (€60 + 27M discount) or $95.7M that Shefler offered for all of it 2016, and the $54.5M in Schummer's letter above, but not when considering how the revenues of Miraval have more than doubled since and Stoli is a huge multinational corp. able to pay much more.
The original complaint stated:
In 2017, Miraval expanded its product lines. And in 2019,
Miraval launched a new brand—Studio by Miraval—at a lower price point, which achieved
millions in sales in its first year on the shelves and has enjoyed tremendous sales and volume
growth in the years since.
In January 2020, Miraval began partnering with Rodolphe Péters, a revered
champagne grower. Pitt’s idea, years in the making, was to establish the first champagne house
devoted exclusively to rosé champagne. In October 2020, a sub-joint venture established under
Miraval Provence released Fleur de Miraval, the first edition of the partnership’s rosé
champagne. Pitt was integral to the effort, engaging in regular meetings and frequent
correspondence with Perrin and Péters and headlining the marketing campaign. Jolie did not
participate.
These investments and efforts have yielded exceptional returns. Miraval is now
sold in over 65 different countries. Revenues have grown from approximately $3 million in
2013 to approximately $25 million in 2017, to more than $50 million in 2021. Volume sales
have likewise skyrocketed, increasing by over 1,800% since Miraval first jolted the rosé market
in 2013.
Even the pandemic could not stem Miraval’s steady ascent up the ranks of the world’s most successful wine brands. Miraval grew by almost 25% in volume in 2020 and its sales increased by almost 20%.
Hummel said
"Chateau Miraval is very profitable and its trademarks are likely worth hundreds of millions of dollars."
Angelina's cross complaint does not mention the trademarks at all.
If Shefler truly paid just $67M for Nouvel, after deducting $40M for Seaward and $20.5M to settle MIR's lawsuits, that would only leave a balance of $6.5M. If they then deduct Brad's loan for the DeMille, they will have a negative balance from the sale of Nouvel. The cross-complaint puts Angelina's total investment at $60M ($40M + $20M reinvested profits), which means she was looking at a small, long-term capital gain that was then used to extinguish a loan. It's one way they could have arrived at $67M. The IRS may or may not have a different figure.
The cross complaints claims
On June 15, 2021, Jolie’s representatives notified Pitt that Pitt’s newly expanded non-disparagement clause and $8.5 million holdback provisions were unacceptable. He also specifically put Pitt on notice that in light of his rejection of Jolie’s final offer and attempt to include this new unconscionable non-disparagement clause, Jolie considered herself “free to pursue any other transactions that [she] would deem appropriate to undertake.” Pitt did not respond with a counteroffer or otherwise contend that Jolie did not have the authority to sell; nor did he claim (as he does now in this case) that he and Jolie had some secret, unspoken, unwritten right to buy the other’s interest and to bar the other from selling their interest to anyone else forever. Instead, Pitt once again ignored Jolie’s overture.
On June 30, 2021 an ex-parte application to lift the ATRO as it applies to Nouvel was first filed. The cross complaint states:
On June 30, 2021, in the couple’s related marital dissolution proceedings, Jolie notified that court that she had located a potential buyer to whom she was considering selling Nouvel, and she asked that court to rule that Nouvel was not part of the marital estate (and therefore the sale did not require that court’s approval). Pitt stipulated— i.e., agreed in writing to the court—that Nouvel was not part of the marital estate. Tellingly, Pitt never claimed to that court, either in the stipulation or in related filings, that he and Jolie had a secret, unspoken, unwritten consent or veto right over the sale of the other’s interest in Chateau Miraval as he now maintains. Instead, all he stated to that court was that he was “not consenting to the sale” of Nouvel or its assets.
Laurent Schummer's July 5, 2021 declaration:
"I am advised that under California law Ms. Jolie may not be able to sign the exclusivity agreement without first being relieved from the temporary restraining orders under California Family Code section 2040 (“ATROs”) even though Nouvel is, as l understand, Ms. Jolie‘s separate property, the parties’ previously bifurcated and terminated their marital status, and the divorce proceeding is approaching five years since the initial filing and automatic issuance of the temporary restraining orders."
"l am informed by Mr. Mannis that on June 30, 2021, the Court denied Ms. Jolie's request for an emergency relief from the ATROs as they may apply to this sale. I am attempting to keep the sale afloat by showing the Buyer Ms Jolie has demonstrated good faith to go forward with the sale in that she has sought and is seeking relief from the ARTOs, and she will sign an Exclusivity Agreement with the addition of a condition precedent that the Agreement is subject to the Court lifting the ATROs as they may apply to the sale of Nouvel, LLC."
In fact, the Stipulation & Order re ATROs drafted by Spiegel, filed by Brad on 09/08/2021 and signed by the judge on 09/22/2021 lifted the ATROs entirely. Mannis' ex parte had only asked that it be lifted as it applies to Nouvel.
While Pitt contends in his First Amended Complaint that he had previously rejected Stoli as a business partner, what he neglects to include is that, consistent with his other efforts to freeze Jolie out of the business, Pitt never told Jolie that Stoli was interested in buying the winery, let alone that he had rejected any offer they previously made.
The point of this is that Angelina did not knowingly sell to someone Brad claimed he rejected.
If the scenario laid out in the cross complaint from June 15 to June 30, 2021 is to be believed, they found their buyer, Shefler, and came to an agreement in just 2 weeks. Not impossible, but highly unlikely esp. since the cross complaint claims Angelina was not aware of Shefler's prior interest in buying Miraval.
They are trying to explain Brad's decision to get Shefler as a strategic partner through an imaginary, tightly compressed sequence. It gives new meaning to "lightning deal."
There is no mention of the DCFS anywhere in the cross complaint. Jane Doe's FOIA lawsuit stated
In response to a referral from Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, agents with the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office opened an investigation into the assault aboard the flights, which continued on the tarmac, based on the federal jurisdiction conveyed by 49 U.S.C. § 46506, which makes it a federal crime to commit assault on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States
The cross complaint states:
Having been alerted to Pitt’s conduct by a third-party witness, the FBI launched an investigation.
As it was with the FBI leak, almost all publications initially could not get a comment from their reps or lawyers. The leak caught them by surprise, this didn't. They knew as far back as July 12, when they filed an S&O that states: "No defendant shall respond to the First Amended Complaint and no party shall engage in discovery, until October 3, 2022." The delay in giving a comment was deliberate. They allowed details of the cross complaint to first circulate and sink.
Anne Kiley was identified by name in the
NYTimes when it updated its Tuesday post. She was first identified as a lawyer and in a subsequent edit, as a divorce lawyer,
A divorce lawyer for Mr. Pitt, Anne Kiley, said that Mr. Pitt had accepted responsibility for some things in his past but that he would not accept responsibility for things he did not do.
the article added a quote
Ms. Kiley also said that during divorce settlement negotiations this year — which were separate from the negotiations over the winery — a lawyer for Ms. Jolie had sent Mr. Pitt’s lawyers a proposal to try to settle the case, and that one of the preliminary proposals had been a stipulation that neither party could make a derogatory comment about the other in public, except in court. Ms. Kiley said Mr. Pitt’s side agreed to discuss the term, but when Ms. Jolie’s side responded, she did not bring up the nondisparagement proposal again.
Kiley's purpose was to suggest that Angelina's lawyer, Samantha Bley DeJean, had also thought of a non-disparagement clause
this year --
2022. The
only activity in the divorce case in 2022 was the Court order on 04/19/22 granting the California Board of Psychology's request for access to filings related to Stan Katz. Why would Bley suggest an NDA 6 years after the petition was filed, 4 years after Bley took over from Wasser, and a year after the mental health hearings concluded after which the case has been dormant? What "divorce settlement negotiations" took place in 2022? Did they even have billable hours in 2022? On the other hand if it were possible for such a stipulation that covers their lawyers and reps -- esp. ones like Kiley and Spigel with a propensity to offend -- it would have been welcome.
Kiley gave a statement to CNN that combines her statement to the NYTimes minus the non-disparagement claim with parts of earlier anonymous statements. It reveals her to be the source of all.
In a statement provided to CNN on Tuesday, a representative for Pitt said: "(Jolie's) story continues to evolve each time she tells it with new, unsubstantiated claims. Brad has accepted responsibility for what he did but will not for things he didn't do. These new allegations are completely untrue."
AP wrote:
A representative for Pitt, who was not authorized to speak publicly, strongly denied Jolie’s allegations and called them “another rehash that only harms the family.”
People printed the full response.
"It's incredibly sad that she continues to rehash, revise and reimagine her description of an event that happened 6 years ago, adding in completely untrue information to try to get additional attention for herself at the expense of their family," a source close to Pitt tells PEOPLE. "She had the opportunity to share information with law enforcement who made the decision not to press charges. She had the chance to share this during the lengthy custody trial, which resulted in the judge granting 50-50 custody to Pitt. She has resorted to trying to keep rehashing the same thing. Going back to the same thing month after month with new and still false information for purposes that only she can understand."
Two days later, on Thursday 10/6, Kiley released another statement to all outlets and this time it was for full attribution, an official stamp that sweeps all the earlier anonymous ones aside.
Brad has owned everything he's responsible for from day one – unlike the other side – but he's not going to own anything he didn't do.'
'He has been on the receiving end of every type of personal attack and misrepresentation. Thankfully, the various public authorities the other side has tried to use against him over the past six years have made their own independent decisions.
'Brad will continue to respond in court as he has consistently done.'
The
Associated Press reported
Kiley did not specify which parts of Jolie’s account Pitt denies, and which he takes responsibility for, and representatives had no further comment when asked.
Jolie representatives had no immediate on-the-record comment.
Neither Pitt nor Jolie has spoken publicly about what happened on the flight, though she has publicly advocated for strengthening domestic laws and has revisited the abuse allegations through legal moves such as Tuesday's cross-complaint to a lawsuit Pitt filed over the home and winery in France
By Thursday all direct denials of the contents of Angelina's cross-complaint and all aspersions cast on it and on Angelina's actions were gone.
The 2nd statement was an admission by Kiley that she misspoke and her earlier statements were met with
Brad's strong disapproval -- because only he could order her to go back out and humiliatingly walk back her statements.
The day after Kiley's statement, on Oct. 7, the
LATimes updated its report:
"Paul Murphy, a Jolie attorney, took issue late Friday with the Pitt camp’s statement."
“The carefully worded statement from Brad Pitt’s divorce attorney, Ms. Kiley, clearly did not address any of the very serious accusations in our Cross-Complaint. Mr. Pitt has been accused of harming his children and he has not denied any of his specific abhorrent behavior,” “Instead, he is continuing his attempts to misinform and deflect, just like he has done for the last six years.”
The LAT added:
A representative for Pitt declined to comment further.
- Brad's reps couldn't respond to follow-up questions because he had shut them down. They wanted Murphy to have the last word.
- A day after AP reported "Jolie representatives had no immediate on-the-record comment," Murphy was ready but it appears he only gave his statement to the LAT.
- Murphy elaborates on what the AP picked up on -- that Kiley could not denying anything.
- "he is continuing his attempts to misinform and deflect, just like he has done for the last six years" - is a direct repudiation of "Brad has owned everything he's responsible for from day one"
- Murphy's statement is just as carefully worded as Kiley's 2nd statement. The difference is he got it right on the 1st try. A bit more specific with its mention of "harming his children," but nothing about harming Angelina. The very limited circulation of Murphy's statement is presumably to limit the image of sniping.
The LAT then added:
Eve Sheedy, former executive director of the L.A. County Domestic Violence Council and former director of domestic violence policy at the L.A. City Attorney’s office, noted Friday that in situations similar to that of Pitt and Jolie, it wasn’t unusual for an abusive partner to “seek to exercise power and control” through means other than physical force, including controlling finances and decision-making.
“It takes courage for any survivor, especially those like Ms. Jolie who is subject to intensive public scrutiny, to come forward to reveal acts of abuse that were both terrifying and dangerous,” Sheedy said in a statement. "[I]n cases where specific conduct is at issue, general nonspecific denials of responsibility and efforts to lay blame on others reflect another tactic that can be used to further manipulate survivors.”
There is a perceptible change in people's views. Instead of a he said / she said situation, there is more general acceptance of the truth in the FBI leak and in Angelina's cross-complaint.
Kiley may be a veritable font of lies but even she did not come up with a story as studded with falsehoods as what Brad initially claimed right after the DCFS investigation leaked.
People September 22, 2016
"A source close to Brad Pitt is speaking out about Pitt’s side of the heated mid-flight argument:
(original version)
"Pitt “was drunk, and there was an argument between him and Angelina,” says the source. One of the couple’s older children “then got caught in the middle, literally. He stepped in front of Brad. There was a parent-child argument which was not handled in the right way and escalated more than it should have.”
The source says Pitt did not hurt his son. “He is emphatic that it did not reach the level of physical abuse, that no one was physically harmed. He did not hit his child in the face in any way. He did not do that; he is emphatic about that. He put his hands on him, yes, because the confrontation was nose to nose and was spiraling out of control.”
Any accusations beyond that are “a combination of exaggerations and lies,” the Pitt source contends, blaming sources close to Jolie. “They have taken the overall smallest kernel of truth – that a fight in which Brad was somewhat inebriated got out of hand and reached a regrettable peak, and that as a result DCFS is looking into it – and they are manipulating it to best suit their attempts to gain custody.”
The Pitt source adds that the star “was not black-out drunk” and that “he absolutely remembers that evening and has been interviewed at length to that effect.”
Brad's story was revised a 2nd time to add this line
"Brad made contact with Maddox in the shoulder area, and there was absolutely no physical injury to him."
"Put his hands on him" -- around his neck
There had been no other information about the incident until the FBI leak which exposed the lie in almost every detail of Brad's initial story.
From his
Ad Astra voice overs
"So many times in my life, I've screwed up. I've talked when I should have listened. I've been harsh when I should have been tender."
"I made a promise to always be truthful. But I wasn't."
"I'm selfish. I'm selfish. I've let so many people down. I'm just a selfish person."
"a self-destructive side"
"I am looking forward to the day my solitude ends. And I'm home."
"I'm unsure of the future, but I'm not concerned. I will rely on those closest to me. And will share their burdens, as they share mine. I will live, and love."
So true.
He must give very convincing apologies and Angelina is obviously very forgiving because his public behavior
after the incident, manifested by the efforts of his reps to defend him, has been disgraceful. Whatever apology he was privately expressing was not publicly apparent before.
Scobie, now primarily reporting on the UK Royals, was writing for one of the entertainment mags (Us?) at the time and previously posted that his reports were suppressed.
People's handling of all the stories that involve both of them definitely showed they were eager for those Pitt promises.
Brad's previous admissions
"We’ve always placed great importance on the mistake. But the next move, what you do after the mistake, is what really defines a person. We’re all going to make mistakes. But what is that next step? We don’t, as a culture, seem to stick around to see what that person’s next step is. And that’s the part I find so much more invigorating and interesting."
“I’m hoping to deal with all my regrets. It takes some forgiveness of self as well. And if there’s someone that you need to [apologise to], something you need to clean up, then you clean it up... Then maybe we can dispense with those regrets if they’re handled. I’m a big believer in making amends.”
"I'm over that hump of middle age and so I'm looking at that last leg... how do I want to spend that time? At my age, you've made enough mistakes... now there's a comfort in applying that kind of wisdom."
only obliquely hint at his actions that led to
Slave to Our Vices,
Self Inflicted Gun Shot Wound to the House,
Buried Needs, and
Aiming at You I Saw Me But it Was Too Late This Time. Nothing prior to the leak explains the pain and self-loathing on display. Or his tremulous, emotional explanation for the message and meaning of SIGSW, "taking account of those I may have hurt and those moments I have just gotten wrong."
There has always been a disconnect between what their lawyers say and what they say. What counts and what the public will remember is what they themselves say.
Cross Complaint
1. William B. Pitt’s lawsuit against Angelina Jolie rests largely on the following premise: Pitt alleges that when Jolie and Pitt first purchased their family home, Chateau Miraval, in 2008, the couple “impliedly” agreed they would never sell their respective interests in the chateau without the other’s consent. That premise is false.
2. In fact, the evidence confirms that no such agreement ever existed. When Jolie and Pitt purchased Chateau Miraval, they were both represented by sophisticated counsel in Europe and separate counsel in the United States. The transaction involved a French chateau and vineyard held by French, Luxembourg, and California-based companies, and ultimately owned by two California residents. The transaction was meticulously documented by counsel from at least three countries. In 2013, the companies through which Jolie and Pitt held their interests in Chateau Miraval—Nouvel, LLC and Mondo Bongo, LLC—entered into a further written agreement delineating the rights and responsibilities they owed one another. Again, the agreement was documented by counsel.
3. From the purchase in 2008 through Jolie’s attempts to sell her interest to Pitt in 2021, Jolie and Pitt have communicated thousands of times orally and in writing, both directly and through their various representatives—lawyers, accountants, consultants, managers, and other advisors. They have issued statements, been interviewed by the press, filed documents in various courts, and commenced business with third parties like Marc Perrin and his business, Familles Perrin, through further written agreements. They even have attorneys for their non-Miraval business and there, too, their property and financial dealings were memorialized in writing. Not once in any of these documents does Jolie, Pitt, or any of their representatives reference the alleged consent right Pitt now claims to have.
4. Of course, Pitt knows this, and Pitt concedes in his Complaint that there is no written contract granting him such a right. He could not even bring himself to allege that Jolie orally promised him that right. So he added a twist to try to explain this glaring hole in the factual record: the consent right is a secret. He claims he and Jolie granted each other this secret consent right through their “actions and conduct.”
15. Jolie and Pitt, like other couples, divided their responsibilities and generally split costs. Jolie made her career as an actor and director secondary to her primary responsibility of raising the children. She also oversaw the day-to-day running of the Jolie-Pitt Foundation, to which she not only contributed substantial amounts of time but also substantial amounts of cash (over twice what Pitt contributed). Pitt continued with his Hollywood career and took primary responsibility for renovating the chateau. While the winery was one part of that renovation, the couple’s initial focus was on transforming the chateau into a family home and a place for the couple to host retreats and meetings to support the couple’s humanitarian and philanthropic endeavors.
Why Jolie Separated from Pitt
17. On September 14, 2016, Jolie’s marriage came to an end. On that day, Jolie, Pitt and their children were flying to Los Angeles from Chateau Miraval. Throughout the long, overnight flight, Pitt was physically and emotionally abusive to Jolie and their children, who were then between the ages of 8 and 15. After that flight, for her family’s well-being, Jolie decided to file for divorce.
18. As documented in a lengthy and detailed FBI report, Pitt’s aggressive behavior started even before the family got to the airport, with Pitt having a confrontation with one of the children. After the flight took off, Jolie approached Pitt and asked him what was wrong. Pitt accused her of being too deferential to the children and verbally attacked her. An hour and a half later, Pitt abruptly walked over to Jolie, demanding, “Come here,” and directed her to the back of the plane. He pulled her into the bathroom and began yelling at her. Pitt grabbed Jolie by the head and shook her, and then grabbed her shoulders and shook her again before pushing her into the bathroom wall. Pitt then punched the ceiling of the plane numerous times, prompting Jolie to leave the bathroom. As she exited, one of their children asked, “Are you ok, mommy?” Pitt yelled back, “No, mommy’s not ok” and started deriding Jolie with insults.
19. When one of the children verbally defended Jolie, Pitt lunged at his own child and Jolie grabbed him from behind to stop him. To get Jolie off his back, Pitt threw himself
backwards into the airplane’s seats injuring Jolie’s back and elbow. The children rushed in and all bravely tried to protect each other. Before it was over, Pitt choked one of the children and struck another in the face. Some of the children pleaded with Pitt to stop. They were all frightened. Many were crying.
20. With nowhere to go and to avoid Pitt’s wrath, Jolie and the children sat still and silent under blankets. Nobody dared to go to the bathroom. Pitt periodically emerged from the back of the plane to yell and swear at them. At one point, he poured beer on Jolie; at another, he poured beer and red wine on the children. After many tense hours, Pitt finally fell asleep.
21. Jolie then arranged for separate transportation at the airport. After they landed, Jolie cautioned the children that no matter what Pitt did, they should not intervene. She then went to wake Pitt up and told him that she and the children were going to a hotel. Pitt once again screamed at her, and pushed her down yet again. He shouted that nobody was getting off the plane and prevented the family from deplaning for about 20 minutes. After a child intervened and demanded to leave, Pitt finally relented. But once outside the plane door, Pitt again physically abused one of their children. He also grabbed and shook Jolie by the head and shoulders, causing one of the children to beg, “Don’t hurt her.” He let Jolie go, but then called her a “bitch,” before adding, “Fuck you, fuck you all.” Jolie and the children then left and made it to a hotel. Five days later—on September 19, 2016—Jolie filed for divorce.
22. Having been alerted to Pitt’s conduct by a third-party witness, the FBI launched an investigation. After interviewing various witnesses, the FBI agent who conducted the investigation concluded that the government had probable cause to charge Pitt with a federal crime for his conduct that day, and the agent prepared a probable cause statement for referral to the United States Attorney’s Office for prosecution.
Jolie’s Attempts to Separate Economically and Pitt’s Attempt to Silence Her
23. After Jolie filed for divorce, everything changed. Pitt kept all properties that the family had lived in, and Jolie’s assets were largely tied up in Chateau Miraval. Jolie did not ask for any of those properties or even alimony, but since her funds were tied up in the chateau, she did ask Pitt to lend her the funds necessary for her to purchase a home for her and their children. Pitt lent her the funds with interest with the agreement once again memorialized and referenced in numerous writings. Jolie then largely put her career on hold— forgoing years of compensation in the process—so she could focus her efforts on her family.
24. The events of that day were traumatic to Jolie and the children. To this day, they have all been unable to return to Chateau Miraval due to its association with these traumatic events, including the children who are now legal adults.
28. In February 2021, the parties reached an agreement in principle for Jolie to sell Pitt her entire interest in Chateau Miraval for $54.5 million which, including undistributed profits, was at or below her cost basis. The negotiators for the two sides even exchanged congratulations on reaching an agreement. But one month later, on March 12, 2021, in the couple’s child custody case, Jolie submitted under seal (meaning no member of the public could see any portion of it except the document title) an “Offer of Proof and Authority re Testimony Regarding Domestic Violence.” This filing apparently enraged Pitt, and in response to that submission, on March 26, 2021, Pitt’s team notified Jolie’s team that Pitt was “stepping back” from the Miraval deal.
29. In his First Amended Complaint in this case, Pitt claims that it was Jolie who pulled out of the deal due to a temporary judge’s ruling that initially gave Pitt joint custody of their children. But a simple chronology of events confirms that this could not possibly be true. Jolie submitted her “Offer of Proof and Authority re Testimony Regarding Domestic
Violence” on March 12, 2021. Pitt pulled out of the Miraval deal on March 26, 2021. The temporary judge’s initial ruling was nearly seven weeks later on May 13, 2021, and his final statement of decision was not issued until June 29, 2021. And that ruling never took effect. Less than a month later, on July 23, 2021, the California Court of Appeal ruled that the temporary judge should have been disqualified for bias and that the temporary judge’s “ethical breach, considered together with the information disclosed concerning his recent professional relationships with Pitt’s counsel, might cause an objective person, aware of all the facts, reasonably to entertain a doubt as to the judge’s ability to be impartial.” The Court of Appeal’s decision rendered the temporary judge’s ruling null and void less than a month after it was finalized. The temporary judge’s ruling had nothing to do with the deal’s collapse.
32. Coming on top of the traumatic breakup of their family and the years spent trying to heal their family—during which time she never spoke publicly about the events that led to their separation—Jolie could not take any more abuse. In an effort to preserve her own mental health and well-being, Jolie decided to turn over the negotiations to her designated representatives and let them decide how best to finalize any sale. On June 13, 2021, Jolie’s representative gave Pitt notice that she was doing so, telling him: “I am writing at my client’s request to inform you that [Jolie] is stepping back from all aspects of negotiations regarding the sale of her stake in Miraval and has empowered me to act on her behalf” because Pitt’s new demands were “distressing and coercive to the point of being abusive.” Even then, Jolie was cognizant that Pitt’s share of the winery would economically benefit their children and be part of their inheritance. Jolie’s intent was for her advisors to help her either close the deal with Pitt or find a third party who could add value to the winery.
33. On June 15, 2021, Jolie’s representatives notified Pitt that Pitt’s newly expanded non-disparagement clause and $8.5 million holdback provisions were unacceptable. He also specifically put Pitt on notice that in light of his rejection of Jolie’s final offer and attempt to include this new unconscionable non-disparagement clause, Jolie considered herself “free to pursue any other transactions that [she] would deem appropriate to undertake.” Pitt did not respond with a counteroffer or otherwise contend that Jolie did not have the authority to sell; nor did he claim (as he does now in this case) that he and Jolie had some secret, unspoken, unwritten right to buy the other’s interest and to bar the other from selling their interest to anyone else forever. Instead, Pitt once again ignored Jolie’s overture.
35. In September 2021, Jolie sold Nouvel to a subsidiary of Stoli Group, an international beverage company with substantial experience selling alcoholic beverages worldwide. Not only did Stoli pay substantially more ($67 million) than Pitt was willing to pay ($54.4 million), Stoli seemed a perfect solution in that, through its capitalization, experience and networks, Stoli Group could readily increase the prestige, distribution, and profitability of Chateau Miraval, financially benefiting Pitt and ultimately their children. While Pitt contends in his First Amended Complaint that he had previously rejected Stoli as a business partner, what he neglects to include is that, consistent with his other efforts to freeze Jolie out of the business, Pitt never told Jolie that Stoli was interested in buying the winery, let alone that he had rejected any offer they previously made.
37. The fact of the matter is that there is no such agreement and there never was one. When Jolie’s lawyer told Pitt in June 2021 that she would sell to a third party if they could not close the deal, Pitt did not mention the supposed agreement then, either. The irony of Pitt’s allegation is that Jolie gave him a first look when she offered to sell her stake to him for $54.5 million. Pitt rejected it. He now argues that he had the power to keep Jolie as a frozen-out, silent partner, the power to refuse to distribute any profits to her, and the power to force her to decline Stoli’s $67 million offer ($12.5 million more than Pitt offered) all based on a secret, unwritten, unspoken consent or veto right that is directly contrary to his own definitive statement eight days before the purchase of Chateau Miraval in 2008, that “it wasn't necessary for two reasonable people to have such an agreement.”
38. The reason Jolie sold her interest in Chateau Miraval directly relates to her decision to divorce Pitt. Since filing for divorce six years ago (five days after that abusive flight), Jolie has steadily pursued the process of separating herself from Pitt. Jolie has never before publicly explained why she and Pitt reached this point—why they divorced, why she and the children have been unable to return to Chateau Miraval, why she had to sell her interest in Chateau Miraval—and she has gone to great lengths to try to shield their children from reliving the pain Pitt inflicted on the family that day. But when Pitt filed this lawsuit seeking to reassert control over Jolie’s financial life and compel her to rejoin her ex-husband as a frozen-out business partner, Pitt forced Jolie to publicly defend herself on these issues for the first time.
39. In particular, Pitt has placed the reason for the failed deal between him and Jolie directly at issue in his First Amended Complaint. Pitt alleges that Jolie did not sell her interest in Chateau Miraval to him because of an adverse ruling from the temporary judge in their custody case and to vindictively harm him, but in truth, and as discussed above, the deal fell apart because Pitt demanded Jolie agree to a non-disparagement clause covering his personal conduct as a condition of his purchase of the winery. Why this non-disparagement clause was so important to Pitt—and an abusive and controlling deal-breaker for Jolie—goes to the very heart of this case and can be fully explained only by understanding what happened on that plane on September 14, 2016.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Jolie prays for judgment in her favor against the Defendants Pitt and
Mondo Bongo as follows:
1. Based on the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Court declares
that:
a. Jolie owed Pitt no consent or veto right whatsoever over Jolie’s ability
to sell her interest in Chateau Miraval;
b. Jolie’s sale of her interest in Nouvel to Tenute del Mondo is final; and
c. Pitt rendered any consent or veto right unconscionable, void, and
against public policy by attempting to condition his purchase of Jolie’s interest in Chateau Miraval on Jolie agreeing to a non-disparagement clause that would have prohibited her from speaking outside of court about Pitt’s physical and emotional abuse of Jolie and their children, thereby relieving Jolie of any further obligations under that consent or veto right.
2. That the Court enter a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and then a permanent injunction as necessary to enforce Jolie’s rights.
3. For costs of suit herein; and
4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
By Julia Jacobs
Oct. 4, 2022, 2:22 p.m. ET
Angelina Jolie filed a cross complaint against her ex-husband Brad Pitt on Tuesday, disclosing new details about what she described in court papers as abusive behavior by him on a private plane in 2016 that led to the dissolution of their marriage.
In a court filing in Los Angeles, filed as part of a legal battle over a winery the prominent Hollywood actors once owned together, lawyers for Ms. Jolie stated that negotiations to sell her share of the business to Mr. Pitt had broken down over his demand that she sign “a nondisclosure agreement that would have contractually prohibited her from speaking outside of court about Pitt’s physical and emotional abuse of her and their children.”
Her filing goes on to describe an extended physical and verbal outburst in September 2016 as Mr. Pitt, Ms. Jolie and their six children flew from France to California. “Pitt choked one of the children and struck another in the face” and “grabbed Jolie by the head and shook her,” the filing states, adding that at one point “he poured beer on Jolie; at another, he poured beer and red wine on the children.” Federal authorities, who have jurisdiction over flights, investigated the incident but declined to bring criminal charges. Days after the plane trip, Ms. Jolie filed for divorce.
A lawyer for Mr. Pitt, Anne Kiley, said that Mr. Pitt had accepted responsibility for some things in his past but that he would not accept responsibility for things he did not do. (In 2016, unnamed people close to Mr. Pitt were quoted in various publications saying that he had not been abusive toward his children.)
The decoupling of Ms. Jolie and Mr. Pitt has stretched on for years, drawn out by a court battle for custody of their children and, more recently, a lawsuit instigated by Mr. Pitt over the French winery, Château Miraval, that the couple bought more than a decade ago. Mr. Pitt’s lawsuit, filed this year, accused his ex-wife of violating his “contractual rights” when she sold her half of the company to a subsidiary of Stoli Group without his approval.
Ms. Jolie’s cross complaint said she only sold her stake elsewhere after talks broke down over his demand for a nondisclosure agreement. Her filing states that the F.B.I. agent who investigated allegations that Mr. Pitt physically assaulted Ms. Jolie and their children on the plane in 2016 had “concluded that the government had probable cause to charge Pitt with a federal crime for his conduct that day.”
A redacted F.B.I. report on the case, which was reported on by several news outlets in August and later obtained by The New York Times, states that the agent provided the United States Attorney’s Office “copies of a probable cause statement related to this incident.”
“After reviewing the document, representative of the United States Attorney’s Office discussed the merits of this investigation with the case agent,” the report said. “It was agreed by all parties that criminal charges in this case would not be pursued due to several factors.”
The F.B.I. report described Ms. Jolie as “conflicted on whether or not to be supportive of charges” related to the case.
A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles, Thom Mrozek, declined to comment. A spokeswoman for the F.B.I. did not immediately return requests for comment.
“She has gone to great lengths to try to shield their children from reliving the pain Pitt inflicted on the family that day,” Ms. Jolie’s lawyers wrote in the cross complaint. “But when Pitt filed this lawsuit seeking to reassert control over Jolie’s financial life and compel her to rejoin her ex-husband as a frozen-out business partner, Pitt forced Jolie to publicly defend herself on these issues for the first time.”
According to Ms. Jolie’s account of the 2016 flight in the court papers, the dispute began when Mr. Pitt accused Ms. Jolie of being “too deferential” to their children and then began yelling at her in the bathroom. “Pitt grabbed Jolie by the head and shook her, and then grabbed her shoulders and shook her again before pushing her into the bathroom wall,” the filing states. “Pitt then punched the ceiling of the plane numerous times, prompting Jolie to leave the bathroom.”
When one of the children came to Ms. Jolie’s defense, the court papers said, Mr. Pitt lunged at the child, prompting her to grab him from behind. Amid the altercation, Mr. Pitt “choked one of the children and struck another in the face,” the suit said.
The 2016 flight has been the subject of news media reports since shortly after it occurred. In November of that year, the F.B.I. released a statement saying that it had closed its investigation into the flight and that no charges had been filed.
Puck News reported this August that Ms. Jolie had been seeking information about the F.B.I.’s case as an anonymous plaintiff in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, with the publication including details of the report.
It is unclear whether the heavily redacted F.B.I. report included allegations that Mr. Pitt had choked or struck any of the children.
Ms. Jolie and Mr. Pitt met each other on the set of “Mr. & Mrs. Smith,” a 2005 action movie in which they played married assassins. In 2008, they purchased a controlling interest in Château Miraval, viewing it as both a family home and business; several years later, the couple was married on the property.
Ms. Jolie and Mr. Pitt have six children, now between the ages of 14 and 21.
The French winery, known for its rosé, is at the center of a legal dispute between the divorced couple.
In February, Mr. Pitt sued Ms. Jolie and her former company, alleging that she violated his “contractual expectations” when she sold her interest in the wine company to Tenute del Mondo, a subsidiary of Stoli Group. According to his lawsuit, the former couple had an understanding that neither party would sell its share of the winery without the consent of the other.
“Jolie pursued and then consummated the purported sale in secret, purposely keeping Pitt in the dark, and knowingly violating Pitt’s contractual rights,” his lawsuit alleged.
Last month, Ms. Jolie’s former company, which is now owned by Stoli Group, countersued Mr. Pitt, rebutting his version of events and his claim that the sale constituted a “hostile takeover.”
In Ms. Jolie’s own countersuit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on Tuesday, she said that she opted to sell her share of the wine business, in part, because she was growing uncomfortable with participating in an alcohol-related business, considering Mr. Pitt’s “acknowledged problem of alcohol abuse.” Mr. Pitt told The Times in 2019 that after Ms. Jolie filed for divorce, he spent time in Alcoholics Anonymous and was committed to sobriety.
Her filing said there was no written or verbal understanding like the one Mr. Pitt described, claiming that Mr. Pitt had, in fact, rejected the idea that there needed to be a plan in case the relationship ended.
In their lawsuits, Mr. Pitt and Ms. Jolie shared divergent accounts of how negotiations around him buying her portion of the wine company fell apart.
Mr. Pitt’s lawsuit asserted that Ms. Jolie pulled out of the tentative deal last year after a judge overseeing the custody dispute issued a ruling against her, prompting her to turn to Stoli Group.
Ms. Jolie’s countersuit claimed, however, that Mr. Pitt had been the one to pull out of the deal after she declined to agree to his nondisparagement clause, forcing her to turn to another buyer.
Statements to the press
A source close to Pitt told DailyMail.com: '[Jolie] continues to rehash, revise and reimagine her description of an event that happened six years ago by adding completely untrue information each time she fails to get what she wants. Her story is constantly evolving. 'She had the chance to share this during the lengthy custody trial, which resulted in the judge granting 50-50 custody to Pitt following in-depth observations and analysis by doctors, therapists, and other experts. 'Her and her team go back to the same thing month after month with new and false information.'
Representatives for Jolie and Pitt did not immediately respond to Forbes’ requests for comment and while neither Jolie or Pitt has ever publicly addressed the incident, sources described as “close to Pitt” have been quoted in publications denying the allegations.
"A representative for Pitt, who was not authorized to speak publicly, strongly denied Jolie’s allegations and called them “another rehash that only harms the family.” AP
A source close to the actor told the BBC that Ms Jolie's claims were false. "She continues to rehash, revise and reimagine her description of an event that happened six years ago by adding completely untrue information each time she fails to get what she wants," said the source. "Her story is constantly evolving."
Attorneys for Jolie and Pitt didn't immediately respond to EW's request for comment about the countersuit Tuesday.
An attorney for Pitt did not respond Tuesday to a request for comment. (LA Times)
Lawyers and representatives for Pitt didn’t respond to requests for comment. (THR)
USA TODAY has reached out to representatives for Pitt and Jolie for comment.
