Brad Pitt battles new legal woes over French vineyard dispute
The legal battle over the French vineyard owned by Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt is still ongoing. This time, the actor has been accused by the company that purchased the shares from his ex-wife of concealing embezzled assets and manipulating the criminal code.
The dispute between Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt concerning the French vineyard Chateau Miraval remains unresolved. There is no indication that the former couple will settle their differences soon. The vineyard, initially intended to be a family business, was acquired by the couple in 2008 through their investment companies. However, their separation thwarted those business plans.
Following the breakup, Angelina Jolie decided to exit the venture. In 2021, she sold her shares to the Stoli Group, controlled by Russian billionaire Yuri Shefler, eliciting Pitt's objection. The actor accused his ex-wife of violating an agreement prohibiting the sale of shares to third parties without his consent. In response, Nouvel, the company sold to Stoli, accused Pitt of misusing Miraval's assets.
Brad Pitt faces challenges over the vineyard in France
According to international media, Tenute del Mondo, a subsidiary of Stoli, filed a lawsuit against the actor, accusing him of redirecting assets to projects without a "business purpose" and manipulating the California criminal code. The In Touch service obtained comments from the company's lawyer.
Tenute del Mondo asserts that neither Brad nor the Chateau Miraval CEO had the proper authorization to divert funds to unrelated purposes or personal use. The company also accuses him of acting with criminal intent by intentionally hiding instances of misappropriation, according to the lawyer's remarks shared by the service.
According to information sourced by "In Touch" from someone close to the star, the allegations are reportedly unfounded. The informant further claims that it is a deliberate attempt to harm Pitt.
A source close to the actor describes this as yet another futile effort by certain parties to protect their interests. They argue that it is not a genuine defense but rather relies on outright falsehoods and baseless allegations, coupled with an unusual attempt to exploit the California criminal code.
