ALSO READ: Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie’s winery war hearing begins; The winner will not be announced until…

Neither Angelina nor Pitt are backing down

A source close to the matter told OK! Magazine, “It’s already ugly but it’s about to get even uglier as Angie is hell-bent on retaliating against Brad and trying to settle more old personal scores.” “This is a straightforward commercial dispute, but unfortunately, the other side has consistently introduced personal elements, exposing weaknesses in their case and making the proceedings complex and lengthy,” the source said.

The documents say Pitt is fighting to void the $64 million deal, which he claims showed Jolie “sold her interest with the knowledge and intent that Scheffler and her associates would control that business.” to which Pitt had devoted himself and wanted to undermine Pitt’s investment.” Miraval.”

In response, the Maleficent actor filed a court document earlier this year where she said she was “not acting with malice in response to any custody decision” when she finalized the deal for the French winery And she was not acting with any intention of hurting Pitt. “Instead, it was Pitt who refused to purchase her interest unless she received her new expanded NDA, enforced by an $8.5 million holdback,” the documents filed by Jolie said. Which was specifically designed to force her to remain silent about her abuse and cover-up.”

It further reads, “While Pitt effectively advances the age-old domestic-violence privacy argument to protect his abuse, his argument is not law, at least not in this century, and he is not the subject of any right.” does not cite any reference that gives him such undue authority.” Security. In any case, when they sued Jolie they waived any privacy protections.”

Also read: Latest blow to Kanye West, former employee files lawsuit against the rapper with shocking allegations

What is the lawsuit about?

In February 2022, Pitt sued his ex-wife after she allegedly sold shares of his estate to Russian billionaire Yuri Sheffler without his approval. They said this was against the verbal agreement they had made, which stated that they could sell their share of the business, but only if the other person gave permission to the new owner.