Connect with us

Business

Angelina Jolie blames Brad Pitt’s NDA for scuttling winery sale, alleges abuse before plane altercation

Published

on

Angelina Jolie blames Brad Pitt’s NDA for scuttling winery sale, alleges abuse before plane altercation

Angelina Jolie’s legal team filed a motion Thursday to acquire Brad Pitt’s communications stemming from an “all-encompassing” nondisclosure agreement he wanted that purportedly tanked the sale of his ex-wife’s share of their Chateau Miraval winery to him.

The former Hollywood power couple’s protracted legal dispute over the winery — and its legacy for their six children — took another turn as Jolie’s team asked a judge to compel Pitt and his company, Mondo Bongo, to produce documents pertaining to his calling for a “more onerous NDA” in order to purchase Jolie’s share of the south-of-France winery.

The documents Jolie seeks, according to the Thursday filing in Los Angeles County Superior Court, are “highly relevant” and also likely to yield admissible evidence in the case, her team argued.

Her attorney, Paul Murphy, also accused the “Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood” Oscar winner of “unrelenting efforts to control and financially drain” Jolie, as well as “attempting to hide his history of abuse, control, and coverup.”

An attorney and a publicist for Pitt declined to comment Thursday on the new filing and allegations of prior abuse.

Advertisement

Pitt has accused Jolie and her company, Nouvel, of secretly selling her share of their winery and family home to “seize profits she had not earned and returns on an investment she did not make.” He claimed in a February 2022 lawsuit and subsequent amended complaints that his investment in the business “exceeded Jolie’s by nearly $50 million” and that Jolie had reneged on exclusive buyout negotiations they had agreed on in early 2021, when she originally said she wanted out of the business.

Pitt has been seeking a jury trial and the undoing of Jolie’s October 2021 sale to the Tenute del Mondo wine group, a subsidiary of the Stoli Group.

In October 2022, Jolie filed a cross-complaint that argued that the couple had no agreement regarding two-party consent to the sale of either party’s interest in the property. She also detailed allegations of abuse that prompted her to file for divorce from Pitt in 2016, ending their two-year marriage and much-talked-about 10-year romantic relationship. (The actors, although legally unmarried since 2019, have not yet finalized their drawn-out divorce.)

The “Inglourious Basterds” star has also complained that he can no longer enjoy his private residence in France, as it is now co-owned by strangers; Jolie contended Thursday that she and their children have not returned to the French estate since leaving it and boarding the fateful September 2016 flight that precipitated Jolie filing for divorce five days later.

In Thursday’s motion to compel, reviewed by The Times, attorneys for the “Girl, Interrupted” Oscar winner asked again for responses from Pitt to help them figure out his reason for pulling out of their implied agreement for him to buy Jolie’s stake in the winery. Pitt’s decision to pull out of the sale, her attorney said, “nearly broke” Jolie.

Advertisement

“If that sale had been completed, this lawsuit never would have happened. But at the last minute, Pitt ‘stepped back’ from his agreement to buy Jolie’s interest in Miraval, and the deal collapsed. The question at the heart of this case — and at the center of this motion — is why,” the motion said.

The answer, her attorney said, has to do with sealed documents Jolie submitted in the ex-couple’s separate but simultaneous custody dispute. The new filing referred to sealed March 2021 documents — titled “Testimony Regarding Domestic Violence” — that “apparently enraged Pitt” and led to him “stepping back” from the sale.

“When Jolie filed the evidence in the custody suit, she was careful to file it under seal so that no member of the public could see it. But Jolie’s sealed filing, which included emails, summaries of the family’s expected testimony, and other evidence, caused Pitt to fear that the information could eventually become public,” the document said.

Pitt then decided he could no longer rely on Jolie’s voluntary efforts to keep things private and demanded that she “contractually bind herself to that silence,” her filing said.

With that, her team indicated there was abuse of Jolie that predated the contentious 2016 private-plane flight. In referring to that sealed filing in the custody case — as well as another titled “Testimony of Minor Children” — her team argued that Pitt tried to force a more sweeping NDA on Jolie to conceal his alleged “personal misconduct, whether related to Miraval or not.”

Advertisement

Her team is seeking Pitt’s communications with the FBI, U.S. attorney’s office, the L.A. County Department of Children and Family Services and the Los Angeles Police Department regarding the private flight. She is also seeking information from DCFS about its investigation, drug and alcohol testing and a safety plan the agency purportedly required Pitt to undertake to address his conduct.

“While Pitt’s history of physical abuse of Jolie started well before the family’s September 2016 plane trip from France to Los Angeles, this flight marked the first time he turned his physical abuse on the children as well,” the new motion states.

According to an exhibit on a 2024 court declaration by Jolie attorney Murphy, an offer to turn over many of the communications requested by Jolie’s team was rejected last month by attorney Stella Chang, who told a Pitt attorney via email that his “proposal does not come anywhere close to providing the documents responsive to [the team’s requests], which Ms. Jolie needs to defend herself from Mr. Pitt’s frivolous allegations.”

Pitt was never charged in connection with the plane incident, either by the U.S. attorney’s office or the Department of Children and Family Services, which investigated the incident — and its allegation of child abuse — before the FBI got involved. The FBI decided in November 2016 to close its probe without filing any charges against the actor. People magazine reported that he was drunk during the incident, which “escalated more than it should have,” and asserted that “no one was physically harmed.”

Jolie never pressed charges, the filing said, “as she believed the best course was for Pitt to accept responsibility and help the family recover from the post-traumatic stress he caused.” It also alleged that Pitt refused to seek domestic violence counseling.

Advertisement

Pitt, in a 2017 GQ interview, admitted he had a drinking problem — saying, “I was boozing too much” — but said he was now sober. He said he was going to therapy after first going through two therapists who didn’t work out, and lamented his and Jolie’s marital woes being dragged out and misconstrued by the media with no “delicacy or insight.” Pitt has never argued that his behavior on the 2016 flight was acceptable.

His legal team said in a June 2023 court filing that while Jolie had backed out of the winery sale, purportedly over “restrictive language” requested in a mutual nondisclosure agreement, a year later she proposed an even broader NDA in their divorce case that would have required that “[o]ther than in court pleadings or testimony, neither party shall directly or through a party’s representatives make in a public forum any derogatory remark about the other party.”

The “Thelma & Louise” actor alleged in court documents that Jolie decided to sell her Miraval stake to the Stoli subsidiary after receiving an “adverse custody ruling” in their protracted divorce proceedings.

Pitt’s legal team last summer claimed that Jolie “vindictively” sold her stake in the winery behind his back and alleged that she “sought to inflict harm on Pitt,” subsequently revealing more details about the unraveling of the couple’s relationship. Jolie’s camp at the time insisted — and continues to do so in the new filing — that Pitt refused to complete a Miraval sale with Jolie “unless she agreed to being silenced” about his alleged abuse.

Now her team is claiming that Pitt attempted to cover up the alleged abuse by objecting to the children testifying on their custody preferences. The filing includes a May 2021 text message from Jolie to a friend (as an exhibit) relaying that she tried to sell the winery to Pitt per their agreement but that he was “really not being fair” and demanding “a lot of punishing restrictions.” The filing also outlined for the first time the language of the “more onerous NDA.”

Advertisement

Said restrictions, per the motion, were put forth in an “expansive” NDA that stated that the parties could not make any statements or take actions that would “disparage, defame, or compromise the goodwill, name, brand or reputation of Miraval Provence or any of its affiliated or direct and indirect shareholders,” including Jolie, Pitt, Pitt’s business partner and good friend Marc Perrin, and Familles Perrin SAS.

It also stated that the parties could not “commit any other action that could likely injure, hinder or interfere with the Business, business relationships or goodwill of Miraval Provence, its affiliates, or its direct and indirect shareholders.” Jolie refused to sign it, and “by June 3, 2022, the deal was dead,” the motion said.

Pitt’s NDA in the failed winery deal would have required, according to 2023 court documents filed by his legal team, that “[a]t no time for a legally binding period of four (4) years following the Closing Date, and, on a good faith basis, any period thereafter, shall the Parties (i) make any statements, or take any other actions whatsoever, to disparage, defame, or compromise the goodwill, name, brand or reputation of Miraval Provence or any of its affiliates or direct and indirect shareholders,” including Jolie, Perrin, Familles Perrin SAS and Pitt, who has been the celebrity face of the winery, so as not to hurt or hinder the business.

Jolie accused Pitt of gaslighting her and, according to the new documents, signed a power of attorney at that point authorizing her European lawyer, Laurent Schummer, to take over the sale process.

“Mr. Pitt refused to purchase Ms. Jolie’s interest when she would not be silenced by his NDA,” Jolie attorney Murphy, managing partner at the law firm Murphy Rosen LLP, said Thursday in a statement to The Times.

Advertisement

“By refusing to buy her interest but then suing her, Mr. Pitt put directly at issue why that NDA was so important to him and what he hoped it would bury: his abuse of Ms. Jolie and their family. After eight months of delays, this motion asks the Court to force Mr. Pitt to finally produce that evidence.”

A person close to Jolie who was not authorized to speak publicly about the case told The Times that Pitt “is drawing all this out of Angelina.”

“She does not want to be here, she does not want to be raising any of these facts, and she is doing it only because Pitt’s lawsuit against her is forcing her to defend herself. It’s incredibly sad and she just wishes he could move on and let her be,” the person said.

The person added that Jolie’s lawyers have emails, photos and testimony that was presented under seal in the custody case that would help her in this matter. However, the person said, if the case goes to trial, she “will be forced to use that evidence in the trial whether she wants to or not.”

Times assistant editor Christie D’Zurilla contributed to this report.

Advertisement

Business

Oil Prices Rise as Investors Weigh Cease-Fire Extension

Published

on

Oil Prices Rise as Investors Weigh Cease-Fire Extension

Oil prices rose and stocks moved slightly higher on Wednesday as investors tried to make sense of President Trump’s decision to extend the cease-fire with Iran despite doubts about the status of another round of peace talks.

An adviser to Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the influential speaker of the Iranian Parliament, dismissed the cease-fire announcement, saying that it had “no meaning.” He equated the U.S. naval blockade with bombings, with commercial vessels coming under attack near the Strait of Hormuz, the crucial shipping lane that has been at the center of a growing energy crisis.

Continue Reading

Business

Contributor: ICE raids and migrant pay cuts are devastating California economies

Published

on

Contributor: ICE raids and migrant pay cuts are devastating California economies

Along the southern stretch of California’s Central Coast, President Trump’s crusade against immigrants has left a visceral mark. It seems these days that almost everyone there has seen or felt the aftermath of an immigration raid: cars with shattered windows left idling and businesses emptied of their usual employees and patrons. The human toll is stark. Raids around Christmas removed at least 100 people from our communities, leaving children without parents and families without primary earners — creating crises that cascade far beyond the moment of enforcement.

The economic consequences of Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids are equally severe. Recent farmer surveys have shown that immigration raids and the fear they generate have caused farmworker shortages, particularly in labor-intensive crops such as strawberries — the region’s most valuable agricultural commodity — where fruit rots on the plant without the immigrant workers who pick it.

Early research quantifying the economic impact of ICE raids in Oxnard estimates direct crop losses of $3 billion to $7 billion with significant spillover into other sectors of the economy. As families lose income to raids — whether through the direct loss of a working family member or in the form of lost business production or sales — they spend less in the local economy. The ripple effect means that the total economic impact of ICE raids is much greater than unpicked crops, with harm most concentrated among the most vulnerable: farmworkers.

Recent changes to a foreign worker program threaten to deepen the wound. The federal program, known as H-2A, allows growers and farm labor contractors to recruit temporary foreign workers to meet seasonal labor demand. It has become the fastest-growing work visa system in U.S. agriculture. It carries with it a welldocumented history of wage theft, abuse and trafficking enabled, in part, by H-2A workers’ relative isolation and inability to seek other employment while in the United States.

Advertisement

Until October 2025, the wages paid to H-2A workers were, although low, not so low as to distort the labor market and drag down the wages paid to domestic farmworkers. In October, the Trump administration delivered a huge pay cut to H-2A workers and, in doing so, undercut wages for farmworkers across America regardless of visa status. Trump’s changes include both a direct wage cut as well as new provisions allowing employers to charge housing fees of up to $3 per hour worked.

Estimates of the pay that farmworkers will lose because of these changes range from $4.4 billion to $5.4 billion, or 10% to 12% of farmworkers’ annual wages. Given these figures, the losses suffered by farmworkers in Santa Barbara County alone — where I conduct research — could range from $126 million to $152 million annually, with subsequent decreases in spending and tax revenue reverberating through the region.

With H-2A labor now cheaper relative to domestic farmworkers, visa holders are likely to fill at least one-fifth of all agricultural jobs in Santa Barbara County. This exceeds the program’s 2023 peak in the county, when 18.1% of all agriculture jobs were filled by H-2A, before wage increases caused many growers to drop out of the program in 2024 and 2025. Including housing deductions, employers can now pay H-2A workers $13.90 an hour, significantly below California’s minimum wage of $16.90 an hour. Growers have a strong incentive to substitute resident workers for lower-cost H-2A labor, resulting in local farmworkers losing jobs and income. In addition, because of decreased income and employment, more farmworker families will be forced to rely on benefit programs such as CalFresh, increasing government expenditures.

The tax and budget consequences of expanded H-2A use should be a serious concern for local and state governments. Not only have Trump’s changes significantly reduced farmworkers’ taxable income, but H-2A workers themselves generate less local tax revenue and economic activity than resident workers would.

H-2A employers and employees are exempt from key payroll taxes, including Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance. At the same time, the program’s temporary structure — averaging about six months — means workers remit a larger share of their earnings abroad to support families they cannot bring with them, further limiting local spending and the sales tax base.

Advertisement

Elected officials are not powerless in the face of these changes. A range of policy levers could help stabilize a labor market under mounting strain, particularly those that reinforce a meaningful wage floor and limit further downward pressure on earnings. This could include raising the agricultural minimum wage, increasing the California Employment Development Department’s program oversight capacity, and bolstering legal protections for undocumented farmworkers organizing for better working conditions.

The United Farm Workers are currently challenging the Trump administration’s pay rate and housing deduction in court, arguing they constitute one of the largest wealth transfers from workers to employers in the history of American agriculture. Meanwhile, Assemblymember Maggy Krell (D–Sacramento) has introduced legislation to raise the minimum hourly wage for certain agricultural workers to $19.75 — effectively restoring the previous H-2A rate. But that fix, while essential, would not take effect until 2027 and still needs to be passed. In the interim, the state and local governments must act decisively to enforce the existing wage floor, ensuring employers cannot use expanded housing deductions to push workers’ pay below the legal minimum.

These are not radical steps; they are basic protections. The alternative is to accept a race to the bottom — on wages, on working conditions and on the economic stability of the region itself.

Matt Kinsella-Walsh is a graduate researcher with the UC Santa Barbara Community Labor Center and the Organizing Knowledges Project. He researches agricultural economics and labor in the North American strawberry industry.

Advertisement

Insights

L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.

Viewpoint
This article generally aligns with a Center Left point of view. Learn more about this AI-generated analysis
Perspectives

The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.

Ideas expressed in the piece

  • The article argues that federal immigration enforcement has inflicted severe economic damage across California communities[1, 3, 7]

  • ICE raids created critical farmworker shortages in labor-intensive crops such as strawberries, with early research estimating direct crop losses of $3 billion to $7 billion in the Oxnard region[1, 14]

  • Immigration enforcement has generated widespread economic ripple effects, as families losing income have curtailed consumer spending, thereby harming local businesses and reducing municipal tax revenues[1, 3, 7]

  • Trump administration modifications to the H-2A visa program, including wage reductions and housing deduction provisions, will compound economic harms, with farmworkers losing an estimated $4.4 billion to $5.4 billion annually, or 10-12% of their yearly wages[1, 4]

  • These wage cuts will suppress domestic farmworker wages across all visa statuses[4, 8], decrease local tax revenue, and contract economic activity in agricultural communities

  • State and local governments should strengthen wage protections by raising agricultural minimum wages, increasing regulatory enforcement capacity, and bolstering legal protections for farmworkers to avert further economic deterioration

Different views on the topic

  • Agricultural industry representatives argue that labor costs have risen substantially over decades, placing significant financial strain on farm operations[2, 6]

  • Growers contend that without policy changes facilitating lower labor costs, some farms may face serious economic viability challenges[2, 6]

  • Industry representatives emphasize that farms operate on narrow profit margins[1], suggesting cost reductions are necessary for agricultural sector sustainability

  • Agricultural representatives highlight persistent labor shortages in the sector, pointing to historical difficulties attracting sufficient domestic workers to meet production demands, particularly in labor-intensive crops[2, 6, 8]

  • The industry maintains that access to temporary foreign workers through programs like H-2A remains essential to address longstanding workforce gaps and maintain agricultural production[2, 6, 8]

Continue Reading

Business

Devin Nunes Departs Trump Media After 4 Years as C.E.O.

Published

on

Devin Nunes Departs Trump Media After 4 Years as C.E.O.

President Trump’s social media company, which has consistently lost money and struggled with a flagging share price, announced Tuesday that it was replacing Devin Nunes as its chief executive officer.

The announcement offered no reason for the sudden departure of Mr. Nunes, a former Republican congressman from California. Mr. Trump had tapped him to run the company, Trump Media & Technology, in late 2021.

The announcement was made in a news release by the president’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., who is a company board member and oversees a trust that controls his father’s 115-million-share stake in Trump Media. President Trump is not an officer or director of the company.

Mr. Nunes said in a statement on Truth Social, which is Trump Media’s flagship product, that it was an “appropriate time” for a new leader with experience in media and mergers to “steer Trump Media through its current transition phase.”

Trump Media has incurred hundreds of millions in losses, and its shares have performed poorly since the company went public by completing a merger with a cash-rich special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC, in March 2024. The stock, which ended its first day of trading around $58 a share, closed Tuesday at $9.82.

Advertisement

Shares of Trump Media trade under the symbol DJT, which are President Trump’s initials. Truth Social has emerged as the main social media platform for Mr. Trump to communicate his policy decisions and opinions to the world.

Last year, Trump Media took in $3.7 million in revenue and recorded a $712 million net loss.

In December, Trump Media announced a plan to merge with TAE Technologies, a fusion power company. The all-stock deal, which was valued at $6 billion at the time, would create one of the first publicly traded nuclear fusion companies.

Trump Media said in February that it was considering spinning off its Truth Social platform in a merger with another cash-rich SPAC, Texas Ventures Acquisition III Corp.

Mr. Nunes is being replaced on an interim basis by Kevin McGurn, who has been an adviser to Trump Media since the end of 2024. Mr. McGurn, a former executive at Hulu, the streaming service, was listed in a recent regulatory filing as the chief executive of Texas Ventures.

Advertisement

The Trump Media release announcing the management change provided no update on the merger with TAE Technologies or the proposed SPAC deal for Truth Social.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending