Singer-songwriter FKA twigs is suing her ex-boyfriend, actor Shia LaBeouf, claiming that he is trying to “silence” her from speaking out against sexual abuse through the use of an “unlawful” nondisclosure agreement.

The complaint, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on Wednesday, seeks a court order to prohibit LeBeouf from enforcing sections of an NDA which Tahliah Barnett — the Grammy Award-winning singer’s legal name — says violates California law.

“Shia LaBeouf has tried to control Tahliah Barnett for the better part of a decade,” the filing states.

“This action was taken in response to Mr. LaBeouf’s attempt to bully and intimidate twigs through a frivolous and unlawful secret arbitration he filed against her in December in which he sought to extract money from her,” said the singer’s attorney Mathew Rosengart, national co-chair of media & entertainment litigation at Greenberg Traurig in Century City, in a statement.

Rosengart added that twigs “refuses to be bullied anymore. She is instead standing up for herself and other survivors of sexual abuse who have improperly been silenced. This is the unusual case that is not about money but about justice and upholding and enforcing California law and policy designed to protect survivors by nullifying illegal NDAs.”

LaBeouf’s attorney Shawn Holley of Kinsella Holley Iser Kump Steinsapir denied the claims.

“When Ms. Barnett and Mr. LaBeouf both decided to resolve their differences and move on with their lives, no one forced her or ‘bullied’ her to stay silent,” Holley said in a statement.
“As a woman with agency, she decided to settle the case and accepted money to dismiss her lawsuit.”

The suit arises out of litigation that Barnett brought against LaBeouf in 2020, when she accused the actor of “physical, sexual, and mental abuse” during their relationship,” as well as “knowingly infect[ing]” Barnett with a sexually transmitted disease.” That case was settled last year.

In a response to the suit, the actor told the New York Times that “many of these allegations are not true.”

But he added, “I am not in the position to defend any of my actions. I owe these women the opportunity to air their statements publicly and accept accountability for those things I have done.”

In the statement Thursday, Holley added that the claim of sexual battery “was disputed, as were the other claims made in Ms. Barnett’s lawsuit.”

According to the new lawsuit, LaBeouf filed a secret arbitration complaint and “improperly sought exorbitant monies” from Barnett last December, claiming she had breached their agreement by violating its nondisclosure provisions after she gave an interview to the Hollywood Reporter in October.

In the interview, Barnett was asked if she felt safe and answered that as a woman of color in the entertainment industry, she “wouldn’t feel safe” and discussed her involvement with organizations that support survivors, saying, “I think it’s less about me at this point and more about looking forward. Just, you know, moving on with my life.”

The agreement Barnett reached with LaBeouf “contained a deficient and unlawful NDA that is unenforceable,” under California’s Stand Together Against Non-Disclosure Act, according to the complaint. The law forbids NDAs from being used to silence victims of sexual misconduct.

“As the California Legislature has made clear, survivors should have the right to tell their stories without fear or coercion, and California law does not and must not allow abusers and bullies to silence them through secret agreements containing unconscionable, unlawful gag orders,” the complaint states.

The lawsuit further alleges that while LaBeouf has sought to prohibit Barnett from talking about her abuse, he has “repeatedly brought up his relationship with Ms. Barnett—on his own and without being directly asked about her—materially breaching the very confidentiality provisions that he had just contended were fully enforceable against Ms. Barnett.”

While the actor agreed to drop the arbitration in February, he has “refused to acknowledge, however, that the NDA provisions are illegal and unenforceable,” the filing states.

The latest round in LaBeouf’s legal battle with Barnett comes just weeks after a New Orleans judge ordered the actor to begin substance abuse treatment and undergo weekly drug testing after he was arrested on suspicion of assaulting two men in the city’s French Quarter. LaBeouf was also required to post $100,000 bond as part of the conditions of his release. He was charged with two counts of simple battery, the Associated Press reported.

Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders will soon render a verdict on Hollywood’s biggest merger in nearly a decade.

Warner has set an April 23 special meeting of stockholders to vote on the company’s proposed sale, for $31-a-share, to the Larry Ellison family’s Paramount Skydance.

The $111-billion deal is expected to reshape the entertainment industry by combining two historic film studios, dozens of prominent TV networks, including CBS, HBO, HGTV and Comedy Central, streaming services and two news organizations, CNN and CBS News. The tie-up would give Paramount such beloved characters as Batman, Wile E. Coyote, and Harry Potter, television shows including “Hacks,” and “The Pitt,” and a rich vault of movies that includes “Casablanca,” and “One Battle After Another.”

The $31-a-share offer represents a 63% increase over Paramount Chairman David Ellison’s initial $19-a-share proposal for the company in mid-September, and a 147% premium over Warner’s stock’s trading levels prior to news of Ellison’s interest.

“This transaction is the culmination of the Board’s robust process to unlock the full value of our world-class portfolio,” Warner Bros. Discovery Chief Executive David Zaslav said Thursday in a statement. “We are working closely with Paramount to close the transaction and deliver its benefits to all stakeholders.”

Paramount hopes to finalize the takeover by September. It has been working to secure the blessing of government regulators in the U.S. and abroad.

Should those regulatory deliberations stretch beyond September, Paramount will pay shareholders a so-called “ticking fee” — an extra 25 cents a share for every 90-day-period until the deal closes.

The transaction will leave the combined company with nearly $80-billion in debt, a sum that experts say will lead to significant cost cuts.

For weeks it appeared that Netflix would scoop up Warner Bros.

Netflix initially won the bidding war in early December with a $27.75 offer for the studios and streaming services, including HBO Max. But Ellison refused to throw in the towel. He and his team continued to lobby shareholders, politicians and Warner board members, insisting their deal for the entire company, including the cable channels, was superior and they had a more certain path to win regulatory approval.

The Ellison family is close to President Trump. This week, Trump named Larry Ellison to a proposed White House council on technology issues, including artificial intelligence.

Warner’s board, under pressure, reopened the bidding in late February to allow Paramount to make its case. Warner board members ultimately concluded that Paramount’s bid topped the one from Netflix and the streamer bowed out. Paramount paid a $2.8-billion termination fee to Netflix and signed the merger agreement on Feb. 27.

Warner’s board is advising its shareholders to approve the Paramount deal. Failure to cast a vote will be the same as a no-vote, according to the company’s proxy.

Warner’s largest shareholders include the Vanguard Group, BlackRock, Inc. and State Street Corp.

Zaslav has significant stock and options holdings, worth about $517 million at the deal’s close, according to the proxy.

The regulatory filing also disclosed that a mysterious bidder had surfaced at the auction’s 11th hour.

A firm called Nobelis Capital, Pte., reportedly based in Singapore, alerted Warner on Feb. 18 that it was willing to pay $32.50 a share in cash.

The firm said it had placed $7.5 billion into an escrow account. However, Warner’s bankers “could not find the purported deposit at J.P. Morgan,” according to the proxy. And there was no evidence that Nobelis had any assets or any “equity or debt financing” lined up, Warner said, adding that it “took no further action with respect to the Nobelis proposal.”