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

Nvidia’s Future in China Remains Unclear After Trump-Xi Summit

Published

on

Nvidia’s Future in China Remains Unclear After Trump-Xi Summit

When Jensen Huang, Nvidia’s chief executive, joined the group of American business leaders traveling with President Trump to Beijing at the last minute this week, many took it as a sign that progress was in store for the company’s long-stalled sales in China.

But as the summit between Mr. Trump and Xi Jinping, China’s top leader, wrapped up on Friday, the fate of Nvidia’s artificial intelligence chips in China was no clearer than it had been before.

Even Jamieson Greer, the U.S. trade representative, seemed uncertain about Nvidia’s future in China, saying in an interview with Bloomberg News on Friday that it was up to Beijing whether Chinese companies would make more purchases from the American chip giant.

Last December, President Trump approved Nvidia, the world’s leading chip maker, to sell one of its most powerful A.I. chips, the H200, to China. But since then, the Chinese government has yet to greenlight any purchases, and no H200s have been sold.

Instead, Beijing has pushed Chinese companies to rely on homegrown technology from chipmakers such as Huawei.

Advertisement

Just before Mr. Trump met with Mr. Xi, China reached a milestone in its long-running quest for technological self-sufficiency. The Chinese start-up DeepSeek said for the first time that its latest artificial intelligence model had been optimized to run on Huawei chips.

Mr. Huang had long warned that this shift was coming. Soon, China’s A.I. companies will rely on Chinese hardware rather than American technology, eroding U.S. influence over A.I. development in China, he has predicted.

U.S. officials did not seem to push the issue during their trip to China this week.

The decision on whether to buy the H200 “is going to be a sovereign decision for China,” Mr. Greer said in the interview. “Obviously we think it could be helpful to them in the long run, but they’ll just have to make their decision on that.”

For years, Washington has used export controls to slow China’s progress in advanced technologies like A.I., and analysts had expected Chinese officials to air their frustration with those restrictions this week.

Advertisement

Despite Mr. Huang’s presence in Beijing, Mr. Greer said, the two sides had not discussed chip export controls at the meeting.

China was firmly committed to producing advanced chips at home and views the U.S. tech industry as a threat to that effort, he said.

“If we are ahead of the game, like we are on A.I. chips, sometimes they feel that can stop their own growth,” he said.

Continue Reading

Business

Iconic local burger chain celebrates 80th anniversary with 80-cent burger

Published

on

Iconic local burger chain celebrates 80th anniversary with 80-cent burger

One of Southern California’s most iconic burger chains is marking a milestone — and offering hardcore fans a one-day deal.

Original Tommy’s is offering an 80-cent chili burger on Friday as part of the Los Angeles staple’s 80th anniversary celebration.

“We’ve spent 80 years earning this moment,” the company wrote in a Facebook post announcing the deal. “The best gift we can give is the one you can eat.”

The deal will be offered at all locations from noon to 8 p.m. Customers will be limited to three of the sloppy burgers while supplies last.

Advertisement

The company will also offer live entertainment and giveaways at the original “Shack” stand on Beverly and Rampart Boulevard.

The chain started as a small stand in Westlake in 1946, where the founder, Tom Koulax, started selling burgers covered in his secret chili sauce.

The chain expanded slowly at first, opening five new locations throughout the 1970s.

Original Tommy’s is one of the few Southern California staples to remain regional, operating 32 locations in California and Nevada.

The chain has struggled to keep some storefronts afloat in recent years and closed the last San Diego location in 2023.

Advertisement

“I’m so proud of my dad for opening this business,” Diane Koulax, the founder’s oldest daughter, said on social media. “I’m glad you all enjoy our food that we make. We’re celebrating 80 wonderful years.”

Another Southern California burger giant, In-N-Out, also recently unveiled plans for a new Orange County location to open in late 2026. The location will be at an upcoming shopping center, The Canopy, in Irvine.

Original Tommy’s is still a family-owned chain and announced the anniversary celebration on Facebook. Koulax’s children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren thanked the chain’s customers.

“We appreciate you guys more than you know and can’t wait to keep serving you for years to come,” Victor Koulax, the founder’s grandson, who has worked at the company for 37 years, said on Facebook.

The chain has inspired dozens of knock-off restaurants, with similar names and chili offerings, across Southern California.

Advertisement

The imitation restaurants are a form of flattery, Bob Auerbach, the founder’s stepson, previously told The Times. The chain doesn’t allow franchising.

Continue Reading

Business

In Qatar, Energy Sector Damage Is Severe, and the Way Back Will Be Long

Published

on

In Qatar, Energy Sector Damage Is Severe, and the Way Back Will Be Long

In Doha, the stranded gas tanker Rasheeda has become a dark joke.

For more than two months, the vessel has drifted in circles in the Persian Gulf near the Strait of Hormuz, carrying the liquefied natural gas that serves as the lifeblood of Qatar’s economy. Residents track the ship on maritime apps and ask one another: “Where is Rasheeda today?”

The looping tanker has become a symbol of the paralysis gripping global energy supplies — a crisis that has cost Qatar billions in lost revenue and helped create energy shortages worldwide.

Qatar, one of the world’s largest exporters of liquefied natural gas, has seen its industry hobbled since war erupted in the Middle East nearly 11 weeks ago and Iranian strikes damaged critical infrastructure. Even facilities that remain intact have shut down because fuel cannot move through the closed Strait of Hormuz.

Since the war began, ships have tried just about everything to get out of the gulf, from calling in high-level diplomatic favors to hand-stitching Pakistani flags, hoping ties to the country mediating the U.S.-Iranian negotiations might secure safe passage.

Advertisement

During a week in Qatar, I interviewed more than a dozen people with knowledge of Qatar’s L.N.G. operations. Sensitivity in Qatar about the scarring of the energy industry is high. So most of the people requested anonymity to speak openly about QatarEnergy — the powerful state-owned energy giant that is the backbone of the economy. The details and observations about the state of Qatar’s L.N.G. industry stem from these conversations.

The consensus from these discussions was that even if the strait reopened tomorrow, Qatari L.N.G. exports would remain crippled for months and most likely impaired for years.

The biggest obstacle is technical. Replacement parts for infrastructure damaged by Iranian attacks can take up to five years to procure. At the same time, global shipping companies no longer trust the route through the strait, potentially leaving much of Qatar’s remaining exports stranded.

QatarEnergy did not respond to requests for comment.

The damage to Qatari gas infrastructure was inflicted in March, when Iran launched a barrage of drones and missiles at Ras Laffan, the country’s L.N.G. production hub. Most were intercepted, but three of the 20 projectiles penetrated defenses and struck L.N.G. trains — the massive liquefaction units that supercool gas for transport.

Advertisement

Rashid Al-Mohanadi, a former engineer who worked on one of the damaged units, remembered the night of the attack. Looking north from his home outside Doha, he saw the sky over Ras Laffan flash with interceptor missiles. The explosions rolled outward like shock waves, rattling the windows and doors of his house. When he stepped outside, the horizon was thick with black smoke.

“That was the moment I realized something had gotten through,” he said.

The facility was already largely idle because Iran had shut the Strait of Hormuz weeks earlier. Experts say the timing most likely spared the plant from further damage, as the lines were not operating under full pressure. Even so, Iran appeared to have hit what engineers describe as the “heart” of L.N.G. liquefaction trains.

The two heavily damaged units accounted for about 17 percent of Ras Laffan’s production. QatarEnergy has indicated that restoring full capacity could take three to five years. Some analysts believe that the estimate is high, but most agree that the recovery will take years.

The strikes appeared to have damaged the main cryogenic heat exchangers, precision machines that perform the final cooling of the gas and whose manufacturing is dominated by a single U.S. company, a unit of the conglomerate Honeywell. Replacement units can take four to five years to obtain.

Advertisement

The heat exchangers are a relatively small target within the Ras Laffan complex, which is more than twice the size of San Francisco, suggesting the strike was aimed at inflicting lasting damage.

Even for infrastructure that survived, getting fuel to market will remain difficult. Unlike the United Arab Emirates and Oman, which have coastlines on the Arabian Sea or Gulf of Oman, Qatar is uniquely vulnerable. All of its maritime infrastructure sits deep inside the Persian Gulf, leaving it without an alternative route to open water.

Roughly 1,600 vessels remain trapped near the Strait of Hormuz, carrying L.N.G., oil and fuel byproducts. After reports that Iran was allowing Pakistani-flagged vessels through, some crews stitched together makeshift flags from scraps of cloth found on board. It did not work.

For shippers, the danger will persist even if a cease-fire holds. Tehran has claimed to have seeded the waterway with undersea explosives. Until international mine-clearing units or Iranian authorities provide credible guarantees of safety, shipping companies are likely to be reluctant to risk their crews’ lives.

The Philippines, which supplies much of the world’s merchant-mariner work force, has begun directing crewing agencies to stop sending Filipino sailors into the conflict zone. Fears of further Iranian aggression and a lack of insurance coverage for such voyages threaten to keep vessels away. That leaves QatarEnergy in a bind.

Advertisement

Qatar cannot simply restart production until it secures commitments from shipping lines to return for new cargoes. If gas continues to accumulate with nowhere to go, storage tanks could overflow, forcing shutdowns that risk permanent damage. Because of that bottleneck, the entire export system is unlikely to return to normal for at least three to four months after the strait reopens.

The full extent of the damage is still unclear, but given the scale of the repairs required, “we’re talking reduced production until the end of the decade,” said Henning Gloystein, a managing director for energy at Eurasia Group, a political risk research firm. “It’s a significant tightening of the market.”

Even if the immediate crisis is resolved, many in the energy industry think that the Strait of Hormuz will not return to what it was. Support is growing for enormous infrastructure projects designed to bypass the strait, potentially redrawing the Middle East’s energy map.

One frequently discussed proposal is a pipeline across the Arabian Peninsula to a new liquefaction and export terminal in Jeddah on the Red Sea. Another would extend pipelines south to the Omani port of Duqm, allowing Qatari gas to be loaded directly onto ships in the Arabian Sea.

But pipelines carry geopolitical risks of their own. Relations between Qatar and Saudi Arabia — through which any overland route would have to pass — are warm now but scarred by a yearslong rift in which the kingdom cut off diplomatic and transport ties. Pipeline infrastructure is also vulnerable to missile and drone attacks.

Advertisement

For now, the immediate urgency is reopening the waterway itself. “Priority No. 1 is getting the strait open,” said Mr. Al-Mohanadi, the engineer who used to work at Ras Laffan. “Then it becomes about finding a mechanism to keep it open.”

After nearly a decade at a QatarEnergy-Exxon Mobil joint venture, Mr. Al-Mohanadi joined the Doha-based Center for International Policy Research as a vice president. He said one option was to create a multilateral maritime insurance “piggy bank” — a private and sovereign-backed fund that would insure ships transiting dangerous waterways such as the strait.

He also said there was growing pressure for Asia’s largest energy consumers to take a more active role in regional maritime security. For decades, the United States has served as the Gulf’s de facto guarantor, maintaining military bases across the region. Mr. Al-Mohanadi argues that the burden should increasingly be shared by Asian “middle powers” most dependent on Middle Eastern energy exports.

“We’re in a period of history where it’s a jungle, and that is threatening global energy security and entire economies,” he said recently over a late-night coffee at a hotel overlooking the waters off the northern tip of Doha Bay.

Near the end of our conversation, Mr. Al-Mohanadi opened a maritime tracking app on his phone. He typed in “Rasheeda,” and out emerged a rendering of the tanker, still endlessly circling the gulf. “Poor Rasheeda,” he said, looking down at the screen. “At this point, she must be so tired.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending