I. The Core of the Dispute: Miraval – Where Love Flourished and Failed

Château Miraval, a 1,200-acre estate in Correns, Provence, France, is the epicenter of this new legal conflict. Purchased jointly in 2008 for about $25 million, Miraval was not just a vacation home but also a globally renowned producer of Rosé wine.

Personal and Business Significance: Miraval was the location of the couple’s private wedding in 2014, and where they jointly built a celebrated wine brand. Brad Pitt devoted significant effort and resources to developing Miraval into a successful enterprise, collaborating with the Perrin family, a renowned winemaking dynasty.

Alleged Binding Agreement: According to court filings, Pitt asserts that he and Jolie had a verbal agreement (later reinforced by their actions) that neither party would be allowed to sell their stake without the other’s consent. This agreement was allegedly put in place to protect the brand’s reputation and stability.

II. Angelina Jolie’s Controversial Legal Action

The situation escalated in 2021 when Angelina Jolie sold her 50% share of Miraval to Tenute del Mondo, a subsidiary of the Stoli Group owned by Russian billionaire Yuri Shefler.

Lack of Transparency: Brad Pitt accuses Jolie of executing this transaction secretly, without notifying him beforehand or giving him the opportunity to buy back the shares (a right of first refusal), as allegedly committed.

Intent to Inflict Harm: This is Pitt’s key argument. He claims that Jolie sold the shares to an “outsider” with the explicit intent to “damage” his business interests and reputation, particularly following their personal disagreements and child custody battles. Pitt argues that the Stoli Group lacked the necessary experience to manage a high-end wine brand like Miraval.

III. The $35 Million Damages Claim: Brad Pitt’s Legal Basis

The demand for tens of millions of dollars in damages, estimated at $35 million (and potentially subject to increase based on final damage calculations), is Pitt’s strongest legal move to date. His legal team has presented the following arguments to justify this massive compensation claim:

1. Breach of Contract

This is the primary basis. Pitt alleges that Jolie breached a binding agreement regarding the non-sale of the shares without mutual consent. Although the agreement may have been initially verbal, Pitt argues that the behavior and mutual trust during their joint business venture established an implicit contract with legal standing.

2. Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations

Pitt asserts that Jolie’s action of selling her shares to the new partner deliberately interfered with the business relationship and management of Miraval between him and the Perrin family (the winemaking partners). The introduction of Yuri Shefler has allegedly altered the management structure, caused chaos, and undermined Pitt’s ability to make strategic business decisions.

3. Reputational and Brand Value Damage

Direct Economic Loss: The $35 million claim is primarily intended to cover the economic damages Miraval has allegedly incurred since the new partner’s involvement. Pitt claims the new partner’s lack of experience and the internal disagreements have stunted the company’s growth and profit potential.

Intangible Damage: Pitt is also seeking compensation for damage to his personal reputation and the Miraval brand itself, especially given the association of the Stoli Group with the Russian billionaire, posing political and business image risks in the current geopolitical climate.

IV. Angelina Jolie’s Response and the Case Significance

1. Jolie’s Counter-Argument

Angelina Jolie’s legal team has strongly refuted the allegations. They assert that:

Jolie had the legal right to sell her personal assets.

Pitt’s attempt to blame her for any decrease in value (if any) is an act of “retaliation” and an attempt to maintain financial control over her.

Jolie simply wanted to exit the business relationship with her ex-husband following abuse allegations and custody disputes, and the sale was an effort to achieve financial freedom.

2. Significance for the Divorce War

The Miraval lawsuit has transformed the divorce from a family dispute into a complex international business battle. It highlights two aspects:

The Weight of Verbal Agreements: The court will have to determine whether the verbal/implicit agreement between the two stars regarding the non-sale of the joint asset has sufficient legal enforceability.

Personal Motivations: The lawsuit also clearly demonstrates that personal hostility and child custody disputes are directly impacting the business and legal decisions of both parties.

V. Conclusion

Brad Pitt’s $35 million damages claim is not just a huge sum; it is a legal strategy to hold Angelina Jolie accountable for the economic consequences of selling her Miraval stake. Regardless of the final outcome, this lawsuit proves that even the most seemingly straightforward joint assets can become sharp weapons in Hollywood’s longest and most complicated divorce battle, while raising questions about the enforceability of business agreements between spouses.