ANGELINA Jolie’s legal strugglе with Brad Pitt over their French vineyard has taken a new turn for the worse.
Jolie, 48, is ordered by a court at the Los Angeles Superior Court to submit all non-disclosure agreements that she had up with third parties between 2014 and 2022.
5Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are in a nasty legal dispute over the actress’ sale of her stake in their Chateau Miraval winery in FranceCredit: Getty
5An aerial view of Pitt and Jolie’s luxurious Chateau Miraval winery in Correns, France, near BrignolesCredit: The Mega Agency
5Brad Pitt scored a legal victory over his estranged ex-wife in court on WednesdayCredit: The Mega Agency
In October 2021, Angelina Jolie decided not to sell her stake in the winery to Pitt. Instead, she sold it to Russian bооze tycoon Yuri Shefler.Judge Lia Martin dismissed Jolie’s objections, stating that her NDAs were not relevant.
Jolie has been given a deadline of 60 days by the court to provide all necessary documents.
NDAs have emerged as a significant concern in the ongoing dispute surrounding the highly acclaimed Chateau Miraval enterprise in Provence, Southern France.
Jolie alleges that she decided not to sell her stake to Pitt, 60, due to his request for her to sign a privacy agreement that she deemed “unconscionable” as part of the deal.
On the other hand, Pitt’s legal team has pointed out that Jolie’s regular use of NDAs seriously weakens the credibility of this defense.
They аrgue that it is a deceptive tactic to justify the choice of selling her ownership to Russian alcоhоl magnate Yuri Shefler in October 2021.
Pitt, who is known for his role in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, is requesting the court to overturn the sale.
According to him, there was an understanding between him and Jolie that they would not sell to a third party without each other’s consent.According to his legal team, Jolie allegedly used NDAs as a tool and even requested Pitt to sign one during their divorce negotiations, shortly after the controversial sale.
She was requested to disclоse all non-disclosure agreements she had entered into, including those with staff members.In a recent ruling, Judge Martin has ruled in favor of Pitt, instructing the Maleficent actress to provide all non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) that she either proposed or received from others, regardless of their finalization or agreement status.
As part of the ruling, Jolie has been instructed to provide the NDAs that were made by companies under her control, along with any relevant documents explaining the purpose behind these NDAs.
According to a source close to Pitt, it seems that Angelina’s decision to make NDAs a point of contention in this case has resulted in a significant setback for her.
It has become clear that her defense is fragile, and she will now be required to disclоse the specifics of all the NDAs she requested from others.
This is undoubtedly a significant setback for her.
Given the current state of the case, this ruling carries significant weight and will pose challenges for her defense. While there is still much progress to be made, it is clear that this decision holds great significance.”
JOLIE’S RAGE
The decision today comes shortly after the court received a witness statement from Jolie’s former bodyguard regarding her use of NDAs.
Tony Webb, a former British special forces soldier, dedicated over 20 years of his life to working for the family after his retirement from the military. He then went on to establish SRS Global Security Ltd.
According to Webb’s written declaration, he usually received instructions about NDAs from Jolie’s personal assistant, Michael Vieira.
According to him, Jolie went as far as threatening to take legal action against two colleagues who broke their non-disclosure agreements by testifying in favor of Pitt during separate custody hearings. Pitt’s lawyers аrgue that this was an inappropriate move.
Webb mentioned in his statement earlier this month that he received a phone call from Mr. Vieira shortly before two SRS Global contractors testified in a court case related to the divorce of Ms. Jolie and Mr. Pitt, as well as the custody of their children.
According to Mr. Viera, there are rumors that two contractors who had previously worked as personal security for Ms. Jolie through SRS Global might be called to testify in the family court case.
Mr. Vieira requested that I prevent the two individuals from testifying. It seems that Mr. Vieira is making this request on behalf of Ms. Jolie.
I clarified to Mr. Vieira that I lacked the authority to intervene as the individuals in question were independent contractors, not employees of SRS Global.
During our conversation, Mr. Vieira emphasized the importance of reminding the individuals involved in the Non-Disclosure Agreements with Ms. Jolie about their obligations. He also mentioned that if they were to testify in the family law case, Ms. Jolie would take legal action against them.
Webb proceeded to clarify that he conveyed Vieira’s message to the two contractors via phone, but both informed him of their intention to testify.
He stated, “One of the two individuals, Ross Foster, made it clear that he was willing to testify even if he was served with a court subpoena, regardless of any non-disclosure agreement.”
According to Mr. Foster, he mentioned that if questioned, he would be willing to testify about statements he overheard Ms. Jolie making to the children. These statements allegedly encouraged them to avoid spending time with Mr. Pitt during custody visits.
‘IMPROPER USE’ OF NDA
According to Webb, Jolie’s personal assistant reiterated her intention to take legal action against the bodyguards during a subsequent phone conversation. The assistant also provided more details about additional non-disclosure agreements she requested others to sign.
According to him, his instructions involved Mr. Vieira instructing him to offer individuals non-disclosure agreements on behalf of Ms. Jolie and collect their signatures.
“For instance, Mr. Vieira frequently requested that I supply hotel staff with non-disclosure agreements and obtain their signatures.”
In a separate legal filing, Pitt’s attorney, John Berlinski, alleged that Jolie had misused NDAs.
He remarked, “The way Jolie employed NDAs to silence her security detail and hinder their truthful testimony in court about the events that occurred privately is remarkably similar to her claims in this case that Pitt misused an NDA to ‘silence’ her.”
Pitt has once again emerged triumphant with the latest ruling, adding to their growing list of legal wins.
In November 2023, a Luxembourg court issued a provisional order that resulted in Shefler losing some of the shares he had acquired from Jolie.It resolved a tie between Pitt and Shefler, giving Pitt the majority ownership of the winery until a complete hearing takes place.
In March, the Los Angeles Superior Court dismissed Jolie’s allegations that Pitt’s lawsuit was baseless and vindictive, allowing the trial to proceed.
5In November, a Luxembourg court ruled on stripping Yuri Shefler of some of the shares he bought from JolieCredit: AFP