1 KEITH R.

HUMMEL (admitted pro hac vice)

khummel@cravath.com
2 JUSTIN C. CLARKE (admitted pro hac vice)
jcclarke@cravath.com
3
JONATHAN MOONEY (admitted pro hac vice)
4 jmooney@cravath.com
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
5 825 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10019
6 Telephone: (212) 474-1000
Facsimile: (212) 474-3700
7

8 JOE H. TUFFAHA (State Bar No. 253723)

joe.tuffaha@ltlattorneys.com
9 PRASHANTH CHENNAKESAVAN (State Bar No. 284022)
prashanth.chennakesavan@ltlattorneys.com
10 LTL ATTORNEYS LLP

11 300 S. Grand Avenue

Suite 3950
12 Los Angeles, California 90071-3426
Telephone: (213) 612-8900
13
Attorneys for Defendant and
14 Cross-Complainant Nouvel, LLC

15 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

16 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
17 WILLIAM B. PITT, an individual, and Case No. 22STCV06081
18 MONDO BONGO, LLC, a California
limited liability company, [Hon. Lia Martin, Dept. 3]
19
Plaintiffs, NOTICE OF RULING RE CROSS-
20 DEFENDANTS WILLIAM B. PITT
vs. AND MONDO BONGO, LLC’S
21 DEMURRER TO CROSS-
ANGELINA JOLIE, an individual, and COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S
22 NOUVEL, LLC, a California limited FIRST AMENDED CROSS-
liability company, YURI SHEFLER, an COMPLAINT AND ON CROSS-
23
individual, ALEXEY OLIYNIK, an DEFENDANT WARREN GRANT’S
24 individual, SPI GROUP HOLDING NOTICE OF JOINDER THERETO
LIMITED, a Cyprus private limited
25 company, and TENUTE DEL MONDO
B.V., a Netherlands private limited
26 company,
27 Defendants.
28
NOTICE OF RULING RE CROSS-DEFENDANTS WILLIAM B. PITT AND MONDO BONGO, LLC’S
DEMURRER TO NOUVEL, LLC’S FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT AND ON CROSS-DEFENDANT
WARREN GRANT’S NOTICE OF JOINDER THERETO
 1 NOUVEL, LLC, a California limited
liability company,
2
Cross-Complainant,
3 vs.
4 WILLIAM B. PITT, an individual,
MONDO BONGO, LLC, a California
5 limited liability company, MARC-
OLIVIER PERRIN, an individual, SAS
6
MIRAVAL PROVENCE, a French limited
7 liability company, SAS FAMILLES
PERRIN, a French limited liability
8 company, ROLAND VENTURINI, an
individual, GARY BRADBURY, an
9 individual, WARREN GRANT, an
10 individual, SAS PETRICHOR, a French
limited liability company, VINS ET
11 DOMAINES PERRIN SC, a French
company, SAS MIRAVAL STUDIOS, a
12 French limited liability company, SASU
LE DOMAINE, a French limited liability
13 company, SAS DISTILLERIES DE LA
14 RIVIERA, a French limited liability
company, and ROES 1-10.
15
Cross-Defendants.
16

17

18
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
-2-
NOTICE OF RULING RE CROSS-DEFENDANTS WILLIAM B. PITT AND MONDO BONGO, LLC’S
DEMURRER TO NOUVEL, LLC’S FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT AND ON CROSS-DEFENDANT
WARREN GRANT’S NOTICE OF JOINDER THERETO
 1 TO THE PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 13, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 3 of the

3 above-captioned court, located at 111 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, the Court

4 heard Cross-Defendants William B. Pitt and Mondo Bongo LLC’s Demurrer to Cross-

5 Complainant Nouvel, LLC’s First Amended Cross-Complaint. After hearing arguments, the Court

6 took the motion under submission. On March 18, 2024, the Court issued its final ruling regarding

7 the Demurrer.

8 For the Demurrer:

9 • The Court overruled the Demurrer as to the First, Second, Fifth, and Seventh Causes of
10 Action.

11 • The Court sustained the Demurrer as to the Sixth and Eighth Causes of Action without
12 leave to amend.

13 In its March 18, 2024 Ruling, the Court denied Cross-Defendant Warren Grant’s Notice of

14 Joinder.

15 A copy of the Court’s Minute Order dated March 18, 2024 is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

16 A copy of the Court’s March 18, 2024 Ruling is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

17

18 DATED: March 25, 2024 CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP

Keith R. Hummel
19 Justin C. Clarke
Jonathan Mooney
20

21 LTL ATTORNEYS LLP

Joe H. Tuffaha
22 Prashanth Chennakesavan
23
By: /s/ Joe H. Tuffaha
24
JOE H. TUFFAHA
25 Attorneys for Defendant and
Cross-Complainant Nouvel, LLC
26

27

28
-3-
NOTICE OF RULING RE CROSS-DEFENDANTS WILLIAM B. PITT AND MONDO BONGO, LLC’S
DEMURRER TO NOUVEL, LLC’S FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT AND ON CROSS-DEFENDANT
WARREN GRANT’S NOTICE OF JOINDER THERETO
EXHIBIT A
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 3

22STCV06081 March 18, 2024

WILLIAM B. PITT, et al. vs ANGELINA JOLIE, et al. 2:58 PM

Judge: Honorable Lia Martin CSR: None

Judicial Assistant: A. Cisneros ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: V. Ponce Deputy Sheriff: None

APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff(s): No Appearances
For Defendant(s): No Appearances

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Ruling on Submitted Matter

The Court, having taken the matter under submission on March 13, 2024, now rules as follows:

First Cause of Action: Intentional Interference with Contract - The demurrer is OVERRULED as
to the First Cause of Action as fully reflected in the Court's Ruling on Cross-Defendants’
William B. Pitt and Mondo Bongo LLC’s Demurrer to First Amended Cross-Complaint of
Nouvel, LLC, and on Cross-Defendant Warrant Grant’s Notice of Joinder Thereto issued by the
Court, signed by the Court, and filed this date with the original forwarded to the e-court scanning
unit.

Second and Fifth Causes of Action: Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage
- The demurrer is OVERRULED as to the second and fifth causes of action as fully reflected in
the Court's Ruling on Cross-Defendants’ William B. Pitt and Mondo Bongo LLC’s Demurrer to
First Amended Cross-Complaint of Nouvel, LLC, and on Cross-Defendant Warrant Grant’s
Notice of Joinder Thereto issued by the Court, signed by the Court, and filed this date with the
original forwarded to the e-court scanning unit.

Sixth and Eighth Causes of Action: Luxembourgish Law Claims - The Court is not inclined to
recognize the causes of action. The demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend as fully
reflected in the Court's Ruling on Cross-Defendants’ William B. Pitt and Mondo Bongo LLC’s
Demurrer to First Amended Cross-Complaint of Nouvel, LLC, and on Cross-Defendant Warrant
Grant’s Notice of Joinder Thereto issued by the Court, signed by the Court, and filed this date
with the original forwarded to the e-court scanning unit.

Seventh Cause of Action: Trespass to Chattels - The demurrer is OVERRULED as fully

reflected in the Court's Ruling on Cross-Defendants’ William B. Pitt and Mondo Bongo LLC’s
Minute Order Page 1 of 2
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 3

22STCV06081 March 18, 2024

WILLIAM B. PITT, et al. vs ANGELINA JOLIE, et al. 2:58 PM

Judge: Honorable Lia Martin CSR: None

Judicial Assistant: A. Cisneros ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: V. Ponce Deputy Sheriff: None

Demurrer to First Amended Cross-Complaint of Nouvel, LLC, and on Cross-Defendant Warrant

Grant’s Notice of Joinder Thereto issued by the Court, signed by the Court, and filed this date
with the original forwarded to the e-court scanning unit.

ORDER SUSTAINING WILLIAM B. PITT AND MONDO BONGO, LLC’S DEMURRER TO

FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT OF NOUVEL, LLC AND GRANTING REQUEST
FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE is e-signed by the court as MODIFIED by the Court, and e-filed this
date.

A copy of the Court's Court's Ruling on Cross-Defendants’ William B. Pitt and Mondo Bongo
LLC’s Demurrer to First Amended Cross-Complaint of Nouvel, LLC, and on Cross-Defendant
Warrant Grant’s Notice of Joinder Thereto is mailed to counsel indicated in the clerk's certificate
of mailing with the minute order issued this date.

Cross-Complainant Nouvel, LLC is to give notice, and e-file proof of notice with the Court.

Certificate of Mailing is attached.

Minute Order Page 2 of 2

EXHIBIT B
 FILED
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA MAR 18 2024

COUNTY OF LOS ANGEL~iid w. SJayton, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court
By: A. Cisneros, Dep,Jty
DEPARTMENT 3

RULING

WILLIAM B. PITT, an individual, et al., Case No.: 22STCV06081

Plaintiffs,
V. Ruling on Cross-Defendants' William
. Pitt and Mondo Bongo LLC's
ANGELINA JOLIE, an individual, and emurrer to First Amended Cross-
NOUVEL, LLC, a California limited Complaint ofNouvel, LLC, and on
liability company, Cross-Defendant Warrant Grant's Notice
of Joinder Thereto

Defendants
Hearing Date: March 13, 2024

TO CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC, CROSS-COMPLAINANT'S

ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, CROSS-DEFENDANTS WILLIAM B. PITT,
MONDO BONGO, LLC, AND CROSS-DEFENDANTS' ATTORNEYS OF
RECORD:

Request for Judicial Notice

Cross-Defendant requests the Court to take notice of 22 documents.

The request is granted. The Court notes that while the Court may take judicial notice
of the documents, the Court may not take judicial notice of the truth of its contents.
(See Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1366,
1375)

1
 Joinder to Demurrer

Warren Grant files a Notice of Joinder to Sections I.B-E, II, Ill, and V of Plaintiffs
and Cross-Defendants William B. Pitt and Mondo Bongo, LLC 's Demurrer to Cross-
Defendant Nouvel, LLC's Ffrst Amended Cross-Complaint ("FACC").

"Although 'standard practice' permits parties to join each other's arguments,

'joining in an argument is different from joining in a motion'; absent compliance
with procedural requirements for a properly filed motion, [a] party 'joini~g' [an]
other party's motion lacks standing to seek relief from the court." (Bridget A. v.
Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 285, 300, fn. 5.)

No actual motion has been filed. There are no arguments regarding why joinder is
necessary or appropriate. The motion for joinder is DENIED.

Demurrer to First Amended Cross-Complaint

Cross-Defendants Pitt and Mondo Bongo demur to the first, second, fifth, sixth,
seventh and eighth causes of action in the First Amended Cross-Complaint on the
grounds that the FACC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
Cross-Defendants further demur to the first, second and fifth causes of action on
the grounds that they are barred by the statute of frauds and statute of limitations.
The hearing on the demurrer was held on March 13, 2024. After hearing oral
argument of counsel, the matter was taken under submission.

Meet and Confer

Before filing a demurrer or a motion to strike, the demurring or moving party is

required to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading demurred to or
the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purposes of determining
whether an agreement can be reached through a filing of an amended pleading that
would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (CCP §§ 430.41)

The Declaration of John V. Berlinski, executed on September 20, 2023, sets forth
the meet and confer efforts of counsel for the Cross-Defendant, and counsel's
attempts to resolve the discovery dispute informally through written
correspondence. The declaration satisfies the requirement of Code of Civil
,~
i:,,->
Procedure section 430.41.

2
Legal Standard

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action.
(Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers,
courts read the allegations liberally and in context. ( Wilson v. Transit Authority of
City of Sacramento ( 1962) 199 Cal.App.2d 716, 720-21.) In a demurrer
proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper
judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968,
994.) "A demurrer tests the pleading alone, and not on the evidence or facts
alleged." (E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Servs. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308,
1315.) As such, the court assumes the truth of the complaint's properly pleaded or
implied factual allegations. (Id.) The only issue a demurrer is concerned with is
whether the complaint, as it stands, states a cause of action. (Hahn, supra, 147
Cal.App.4th at 747.)

First Cause of Action: Intentional Interference with Contract

Cross-Defendants demur to the first cause of action in the FACC on the grounds
that Cross-Complainant fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action.

The elements for the tort of intentional interference with the performance of a.
contract are: "(1) a valid contract between plaintiff and another party; (2)
defendant's knowledge of the contract; (3) defendant's intentional acts designed to
induce a breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; (4) actual breach or
disruption of the contractual relationship; and (5) resulting damage." (Asahi Kasei
Pharma Corporation v. Actelion Ltd. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 945, 958.)

Cross-Complainant alleges, in support of the causes of action, that the Quimicum

Articles constitute a valid and binding agreement among Nouvel, Mondo Bongo
and Quimicum. Cross-Defendants worked together to divert Chateau Miraval's
funds to projects that lacked a legitimate business purpose, including vanity
projects for Pitt and the use of Chateau Miraval's assets to benefit companies in
which Mondo Bongo holds an ownership interest (but in which Nouvel holds little
or no interest). They also caused Miraval Provence to misappropriate Chateau
Miraval's valuable assets. They knew this conduct was harmful to Nouvel. Cross-
Defendants knew that Quimicuin would put a stop to their plan to strip Chateau
Miraval of assets if a reasonable Quimicum director were elected. So they
developed a plan to disrupt the contractual relationship among Nouvel, Mondo
Bongo and Quimicum, as set forth in the Quimicum Articles, and the normal
operation of those articles, which would allow Quimicum to supervise Chateau
3
Miraval, including the provisions set forth above. Because Nouvel and Mondo
Bongo each own 50% of Quimicum, Quimicum could be effectively disabled and
prevented from supervising Chateau Miraval if Mondo Bongo prevented the
appointment of directors who could act on behalf of Quimicum. Pitt, Bradbury,
Venturini, Perrin, Familles Perrin, Miraval Provence, and Grant encouraged and
worked with Mondo Bongo to impose a shareholder deadlock at Quimicum to
prevent Quimicum from functioning properly. They did so intentionally and in bad
faith with the express purpose to intentionally disrupt the contractual relationship
among Nouvel, Mondo Bongo and Quimicum, as set forth in the Quimicum
Articles, and the normal performance of those articles. Among other things, they
intentionally and in bad faith. Cross-Defendants' actions did in fact disrupt the
performance of the Quimicum Articles and Nouvel's contractual relationship with
Mondo Bongo and Quimicum. Pitt, Perrin, and their co-conspirators intervened in
the normal functioning of the Quimicum shareholder franchise by causing Mondo
Bongo to impose a shareholder deadlock at Quimicum. That deadlock has left
Quimicum without any directors capable of supervising Chateau Miraval, which is
the direct cause of all the above harms to Nouvel. Quimicum can act only through
its directors, yet Mondo Bongo's conduct has left Quimicum with no director since
2021, rendering Quimicum unable to act to supervise Chateau Miraval. Under
Luxembourg law, directors have an obligation to manage a company's affairs. Any
reasonable director made aware of the conduct of Pitt, Perrin, and their co-
conspirators to drain value from Quimicum' s sole asset, Chateau Miraval, would
have taken steps to protect that asset and to ensure that Nouvel receives
information concerning Quimicum on a co-equal basis with its other 50% co-
owner, Mondo Bongo. Under Chateau Miraval's bylaws, Chateau Miraval's
directors can be removed by its shareholders. Because Quimicum is the controlling
shareholder of Chateau Miraval, any reasonable director of Quimicum would have
removed Chateau Miraval' s directors in thrall to Pitt who allowed the
misappropriation of Chateau Miraval' s assets and replaced them with directors
who would defend and protect Chateau Miraval' s assets. As a direct and proximate
result of Cross-Defendants' wrongful conduct, Nouvel has suffered damages in an
amount to be proven at trial but estimated to be not less than $350 million because,
among other things, as a result of Quimicum's inability to act, Nouvel is being
blocked from receiving information about, and participating in the governance of,
Quimicum on a co-equal basis; Chateau Miraval has not paid Quimicum any
dividends; the assets of Chateau Miraval have been diverted from it, including to
benefit companies in which Mondo Bongo holds an ownership interest (but in
which Nouvel holds little or no interest); and Nouvel's shareholder loans have not
been repaid. (FACC ,r,r 224-233)

4
 Cross-Defendants argue that the tortious interference with contract claim fails
because, as a matter of law, Nouvel cannot sue Mondo Bongo's sole owner and
manager (Pitt) for interference in Mondo Bongo's contract.

As Cross-Complainant pointed out during oral argument, contract interference

claims are allowed against owners of the company whose contract was the subject
of the litigation. Woods vs. Fox Broadcasting Sub., (2005) 129 Cal. App. 4th 344,
356. Here, Cross-Complainant has made allegations against Defendant Pitt as an
owner of Mondo Bongo, and not as Mondo Bongo's agent. Cross-Complainant
has pleaded a cause of action for Intentional Interference with Contract.

The demurrer is OVERRULED as to the First Cause of Action.

Second and Fifth Causes of Action: Tortious Interference with Prospective

Economic Advantage

Cross-Defendants demur to Cross-Complainant's second and fifth causes of action

on the grounds that the F ACC fails to state sufficient facts; lack of standing; and
because the claims are barred by the two-year statute of limitations.

Statute ofLimitations
Unless a complaint affirmatively discloses on its face that the statute of limitations
has run, the general demurrer on these grounds must be overruled. (See Lockley v.
Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 875,
881 ["It must appear clearly and affirmatively that, upon the face of the complaint,
the right of action is necessarily barred"].) Instead, "(t]he proper remedy 'is to
ascertain the factual basis of the contention through discovery and, if necessary,
file a motion for summary judgment .... ' [Citation.]" (Roman v. County ofLos
Angeles (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 316, 325.) •

Generally, a "statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff suspects or

should suspect that her injury was caused by wrongdoing, that someone has done
something wrong to her" (the "discovery rule"). (Bernson v. Browning-Ferris
Industries (1994) 7 Cal.4th 926, 932.) However, if the complaint alleges wrongful
co~duct commencing at a time now barred by the statute of limitations, but
continuing until a date not barred, the last overt act supporting the tort controls the
trigger date for the statute of limitations. (See Wyatt v. Union Mortg. Co. (1979) 24
Cal.3d 773, 786 [holding that the statute of limitations on continuing tort cause of
;;, action does not begin to run until commission of last overt act].)
,,._.,
f,,~

,:;p
·-
5
"[C]auses of action for interference with contractual relations and interference with
prospective business advantage are barred by the two-year statute of
limitations." (Knoell v. Petrovich (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 164, 168.)

Here, the last overt act was alleged to be the wasteful renovations to Miraval
Studios in December 2021 (Id. ,r,r 116, 131). The claim was timely brought.

Derivative Action

An action is derivative, that is, in the corporate right, if the gravamen of the
complaint is injury to the corporation, or to the whole body of its stock and
property without any severance or distribution among indivi.dual stockholders, or it
seeks to recover assets for the corporation or to prevent the dissipation of its assets.
(Everest Investors v. McNeil Partners (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 411, 425.)

Cross-Complainant alleges the following: Pitt harmed Nouvel by preventing the

repayment of its shareholder loans to Quimicum (FACC. ,r,r 114,220) and that
"Pitt and his coconspirators are directly and intentionally harming Nouvel by
rendering a substantial portion ofNouvel's assets in the form of its outstanding
shareholder loans illiquid" (FACC. ,r 220).

A shareholder action is individual only if the stock of the individual plaintiff or

plaintiffs is the only stock affected adversely. (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72
Cal.App.4th 111, 127. When, however, the injury is to the "whole body of stock," e.g.,
the corporation loses earnings, profits, and opportunities, rendering all the shares
valueless, the action must be derivative. (Id.)

Here, Cross-Complainant adequately alleges individual harm to Nouvel as the only

stock affected adversely.

The action is not derivative as pied.

Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage

The elements for the tort of intentional interference with prospective economic
advantage are: "(1) an economic relationship between the plaintiff and some third
party, with the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) the
defendant's knowledge of the relationship; (3) intentional acts on the part of the
defendant designed to disrupt the relationship; (4) actual disruption of the
relationship; and (5) economic harm to the plaintiff proximately caused by the acts

6
of the defendant." (Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th
1134, 1153.)

"[T]he tort of interference with contract is merely a species of the broader tort of
interference with prospective economic advantage. [Citations.]" (Buckaloo v.
Johnson (1975) 14 Cal.3d 815, 823.) To the extent they are distinct, the former
refers to disruption of an existing contract, while the latter refers to disruption of a
possible future relationship. (Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. Inc.
(1995) 11 Cal.4th 376, 392.) "[B]oth ... torts protect the public interest in stable
economic relationships and both share the same intent requirement." (Reeves,
supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 1152.)

The FACC alleges as follows. Nouvel has had and continues to have economic
relations with Chateau Miraval that are likely to yield future and continued benefits
to Nouvel. In 2009, Nouvel loaned money to Chateau Miraval through Quimicum
to invest in Chateau Miraval's business. Nouvel had an expectation of profit from
this loan to Chateau Miraval. Specifically, Nouvel expected that Chateau Miraval
would undertake investments that would increase Chateau Miraval' s profits and
enhance the value of its business. Nouvel reasonably expected the millions of
dollars it loaned to Chateau Miraval through Quimicum to be repaid after Chateau
Miraval' s wine business became profitable. Instead, Pitt and his coconspirators
have diverted the wine business' profits to their own purposes. Pitt and his
coconspirators are directly and intentionally harming Nouvel by rendering a
substantial portion ofNouvel's assets in the form of its outstanding shareholder
loans illiquid. Nouvel has an expectation of profit based on its indirect 50% equity
interest in Chateau Miraval. Cross-Defendants knew of these economic relations
and the likelihood of continued benefits to Nouvel. Pitt caused Mondo Bongo to
enter into a similar financial arrangement with Quimicum at the same time as
Nouvel. Bradbury, Venturini, and Grant knew or were charged with knowledge of
such economic relations by virtue of their status as directors of Chateau Miraval.
All parties knew that Nouvel held a 50% indirect economic interest in Chateau
Miraval through its ownership of 50% of Quimicum. Cross-Defendants
intentionally engaged in actions designed to disrupt Nouvel's continued economic
relations with Chateau Miraval. Pitt, Bradbury, Venturini, Grant, Mondo Bongo,
and Miraval Studios worked together to divert Chateau Miraval' s resources to
projects that lacked a legitimate business purpose, including vanity projects for Pitt
and renovations to benefit a company in which Mondo Bongo holds a 40%
ownership interest but Nouvel holds no direct interest. The misappropriation of
Chateau Miraval' s assets was independently wrongful because Bradbury,
Venturini, and Grant each breached their duty to act in the best interest of Chateau
7
Miraval to protect its assets and because all parties acted in a faulty manner and
caused harm to Chateau Miraval in violation of French Civil Code Article 1240,
which creates a broad tort cause of action for any faulty action causing harm to
another. Pitt, Bradbury, Venturini, Grant, Mondo Bongo, and Miraval Studios
worked together to misappropriate Chateau Miraval' s valuable intellectual
property assets. The misappropriation of Chateau Miraval' s intellectual property
was independently wrongful because Cross-Defendants' registration of Chateau
Miraval' s intellectual property amounts to theft or conversion of Chateau
Miraval' s assets, because Bradbury, Venturini, and Grant each breached their duty
to act in the best interest of Chateau Miraval to protect its intellectual property, and
because all parties acted in a faulty manner and caused harm to Chateau Miraval in
violation of French Civil Code Article 1240, which creates a broad tort cause of
action for any faulty action causing harm to another. Pitt, Bradbury, Venturini,
Grant, Mondo Bongo, and Miraval Studios prevented Chateau Miraval from
paying dividends to Quimicum that could be used to repay Nouvel's shareholder
loans by diverting Chateau Miraval's resources to projects that lacked a legitimate
business purpose. This conduct was independently wrongful because Bradbury,
Venturini, and Grant each breached their duty to act in the best interest of Chateau
Miraval to protect its assets and because all parties acted in a faulty manner and
caused harm to Chateau Miraval in violation of French Civil Code Article 1240,
which creates a broad tort cause of action for any faulty action causing harm to
another. Pitt, Bradbury, Venturini, Grant, Mondo Bongo, and Miraval Studios
knew this conduct was harmful to Nouvel. Cross-Defendants did in fact disrupt the
economic relationship between Nouvel and Chateau Miraval because the economic
benefits that accrued to Chateau Miraval from investments funded by Nouvel's
loan to it have not benefitted Nouvel but instead have been diverted away from
Nouvel and used for other purposes. Cross-Defendants' conduct is the direct cause
of these harms to Nouvel. Between 2013 and 2022, Miraval Provence has paid €45
million in dividends to Chateau Miraval. At the same time, its trademarks
increased in value with the success of Chateau Miraval' s wines. Had Cross-
Defendants not misappropriated Chateau Miraval' s assets, Chateau Miraval would
have retained control of its trademarks and would have paid dividends to
Quimicum, which then would have repaid Nouvel's shareholder loans and paid
dividends to Nouvel. In addition, had Chateau Miraval sold the misappropriated
trademarks at fair market value, Chateau Miraval would have had cash to pay
dividends to Quimicum, which in tum would have repaid Nouvel's shareholder
loans and paid Nouvel dividends. As a direct and proximate result of Cross-
Defendants' wrongful conduct, Nouvel has suffered damages in an amount to be
proven at trial but estimated to be not less than $350 million because, among other
things, Chateau Miraval has not paid Quimicum any dividends, the assets of

8
Chateau Miraval have been diverted from it, including to benefit companies in
which Mondo Bongo holds an ownership interest (but in which Nouvel holds little
or no interest); Nouvel's economic interest in Chateau Miraval's valuable
trademarks has been reduced; and Nouvel's shareholder loans have not been
repaid. (FACC ,,235-247)

Nouvel has sufficiently alleged each of these elements. Nouvel alleges it was in an
economic relationship with Chateau Miraval which would have resulted in
economic benefit to Nouvel. (FACC ,,236-238.) The relationship is economic in
nature. Plaintiff further alleges Cross-Defendants knew of and disrupted the
relationship. (Id.,, 238-245.) Nouvel also alleges Cross-Defendants engaged in
independently wrongful acts, by engaging in "theft or conversion," "breach[ing]
their duty to act in the best interest of Chateau Miraval to protect its assets" and
"violat[ing] French Civil Code Article 1240." (Id. ,,241-243.) Last, Nouvel
alleges that Nouvel suffered damages as a result of the tortious acts. (Id.
,247.) At the pleading stage, no further specificity is required. Accordingly, the
Court overrules the demurrer to the tortious interference claim.

The demurrer is OVERRULED as to the second and fifth causes of action.

Sixth and Eighth Causes of Action: Luxembourgish Law Claims

"[A]s the forum, California 'can only apply its own law.'" (Hurtado v. Superior
Court, 11 Cal.3d 574, 581 (1974) (quoting Reich v. Purcell, 67 Cal.2d 551, 553
(1967)). And "even in cases involving foreign elements, the court should be
. expected, as a matter of course, to apply the rule of decision found in the law of the
forum." (Hurtado, 11 Cal.3d at 58L)

The Court is not inclined to recognize the causes of action. The demurrer is
SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

Seventh Cause of Action: Trespass to Chattels

The Court has declined to apply Luxembourgish law. As discussed above, the
action is not derivative as pled. Cross-Defendants demur further on the grounds
that causation is not adequately pled.
'
"[T]respass to chattels 'lies where an intentional interference with the possession
of personal property has proximately caused injury.'" (Intel Corp. v. Hamidi
(2003) 30 Cal.4th 1342, 1350-51 (quoting Thrifty-Tel, Inc. v. Bezenek (1996) 46
Cal.App.4th 1559, 1566).) "A trespass to a chattel may be committed by
9
intentionally dispossessing another of the chattel, or using or intermeddling with a
chattel in the possession of another." (Jamgotchian v. Slender (2009) 170
Cal.App.4th 1384, 1401.)

Under California law, trespass to chattels lies where an intentional interference

with the possession of personal property has proximately caused injury. In cases
of interference·with possession of personal property not amounting to conversion,
the owner has a cause of action for trespass or case, and may recover only the
actual damages suffered by reason of the impairment of the property or the loss of
its use. In modem American law generally, trespass remains as an occasional
remedy for minor interferences, resulting in some damage, but not sufficiently
serious or sufficiently important to amount to the greater tort" of
conversion." (Intel Corp. v. Hamidi (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1342, 1350-1351)

Cross-Complainant alleges as follows. Cross-Defendants' actions devalued

Nouvel's shares and intermeddled with the quality of those shares by interfering
with Nouvel's rights as a shareholder ofQuimicum and stripping Quimicum of the
economic benefits of its investments. Cross-Defendants intermeddled with the
quality or value ofNouvel's Quimicum shares by preventing Nouvel from
effectively exercising its shareholder rights because they encouraged and worked
with Mondo Bongo to impose a shareholder deadlock at Quimicum to prevent
Quimicum from functioning properly. Because of the shareholder deadlock,
Nouvel has been prevented from effectively taking part in collective decisions of
Quimicum and effectively exercising voting rights in proportion to its share
ownership in breach of, among other provisions, Quimicum Article 7 .2, which
provides that "each shareholder may take part in collective decisions irrespectively
of the number of shares (parts sociales) he owns". Cross-Defendants have caused a
functional disruption to Nouvel's Quimicum shares by systematically opposing all
resolutions put forward by Nouvel, thereby nullifying the utility of the franchise
right inherent in Nouvel's Quimicum shares. Cross-Defendants' actions also
intermeddled with the quality or value ofNouvel's Quimicum shares by diverting
Chateau Miraval' s funds to projects that lacked a legitimate business purpose,
including vanity projects for Pitt and the use of Chateau Miraval' s assets to benefit
companies in which Mondo Bongo holds an ownership interest (but in which
Nouvel holds little or no interest), and causing Miraval Provence to misappropriate
Chateau Miraval' s valuable assets. Pitt, Mondo Bongo, and their co-conspirators
intervened in the normal functioning of the Quimicum shareholder franchise by
causing Mondo Bongo to impose a shareholder deadlock at Quimicum. That
deadlock has left Quimicum without any directors capable of supervising Chateau
Miraval, which is the direct cause of these harms to Nouvel. Quimicum can act
 only through its directors, yet Mondo Bongo's conduct has left Quimicum with no
director since 2021, rendering Quimicum unable to act to supervise Chateau
Miraval. As a direct and proximate result of Cross-Defendants' wrongful conduct,
Nouvel has suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial but estimated to be
not less than $350 million because as a result of Quimicum's inability to act,
among other things, Nouvel is being blocked from receiving information about,
and participating in the governance of, Quimicum on a co-equal basis; Chateau
Miraval has not paid Quimicum any dividends; the assets of Chateau Miraval have
been diverted from it, including to benefit companies in which Mondo Bongo
holds an ownership interest (but in which Nouvel holds little or no interest); and
Nouvel's economic interest in Chateau Miraval's valuable trademarks has been
reduced. (FACC ,I,I305-309)

Trespass to chattels pursuant to California law is adequately pled. At the pleading

stage, no further specificity is required.

The demurrer is OVERRULED.

Dated: March 18, 2024

LIA MARTIN
- • ,--:i-,· -, -. 7 .-- . ·;. ,,_ ~

Hon. Lia Martin

Judge of the Superior Court

..,.,
<,..J

r'1>o.,...1
r-:lO
...,.
,...,,.,
,:;;,;, 11
r~)

,/:S,.
 1 PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
2 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am
employed in the County of Los Angeles. My business address is 300 S. Grand Ave., Suite 3950,
3
Los Angeles, CA 90071. E-mail: lynette.suksnguan@ltlattorneys.com
4
On March 25, 2024, I served true copies of the document described as NOTICE OF
5 RULING RE CROSS-DEFENDANTS WILLIAM B. PITT AND MONDO BONGO, LLC’S
DEMURRER TO CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S FIRST AMENDED
6 CROSS-COMPLAINT AND ON CROSS-DEFENDANT WARREN GRANT’S NOTICE OF
JOINDER THERETO on the interested parties in this action as follows:
7
John V. Berlinski William Savitt (admitted pro hac vice)
8
BIRD, MARELLA, RHOW, Jonathan M. Moses (admitted pro hac vice)
9 LINCENBERG, DROOKS & NESSIM, LLP Sarah K. Eddy (admitted pro hac vice)
1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor Adam L. Goodman (admitted pro hac vice)
10 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561 Jessica L. Allen (admitted pro hac vice)
Tel: (310) 201-2100 Remy Grosbard (admitted pro hac vice)
11 Fax: (310) 201-2110 WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ
12 Email: jberlinski@birdmarella.com, 51 West 52nd Street
BTeachout@birdmarella.com, New York, NY 10019
13 jcherlow@birdmarella.com, Tel: (212) 403-1000
fwang@birdmarella.com, Fax: (212) 403-2000
14 skosmacher@birdmarella.com, Email: wdsavitt@wlrk.com,
KMeyer@birdmarella.com, jmmoses@wlrk.com, skeddy@wlrk.com,
15 PYates@birdmarella.com, algoodman@wlrk.com, jlallen@wlrk.com,
16 Rattarson@birdmarella.com rkgrosbard@wlrk.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants William B. Pitt and Mondo Bongo, LLC and Cross-
17 Defendant Warren Grant

18
Laura Brill (SB No. 195889) William Savitt (admitted pro hac vice)
19 Katelyn Kuwata (SB No. 319370) Jonathan M. Moses (admitted pro hac vice)
KENDALL BRILL & KELLY LLP Sarah K. Eddy (admitted pro hac vice)
20 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1725 Adam L. Goodman (admitted pro hac vice)
Los Angeles, CA 90067 Jessica L. Allen (admitted pro hac vice)
21 Tel: (310) 556-2700 Remy Grosbard (admitted pro hac vice)
22 Fax: (310) 556-2705 WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ
Email: lbrill@kbkfirm.com 51 West 52nd Street
23 Email: kkuwata@kbkfirm.com New York, NY 10019
Tel: (212) 403-1000
24 Fax: (212) 403-2000
Email: wdsavitt@wlrk.com,
25
jmmoses@wlrk.com, skeddy@wlrk.com,
26 algoodman@wlrk.com, jlallen@wlrk.com,
rkgrosbard@wlrk.com
27
Attorneys appearing specially to challenge jurisdiction on behalf of Cross-Defendants Roland
28 Venturini and Gary Bradbury

-19-
PROOF OF SERVICE
 1 Mark T. Drooks (SB No. 123561) S. Gale Dick (admitted pro hac vice)
BIRD, MARELLA, RHOW, LINCENBERG, Randall W. Bryer (admitted pro hac vice)
2 DROOKS & NESSIM, LLP Phoebe H. King (admitted pro hac vice)
1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor COHEN & GRESSER LLP
3
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561 800 Third Avenue
4 Tel: (310) 201-2100 New York, NY 10022
Email: mdrooks@birdmarella.com Tel: (212) 957-7600
5 Email: sgdick@cohengresser.com,
rbryer@cohengresser.com,
6 Attorneys appearing specially to challenge pking@cohengresser.com
jurisdiction on behalf of Cross-Defendants Marc-
7
Olivier Perrin, SAS Miraval Provence, SAS Attorneys appearing specially to challenge
8 Familles Perrin, SAS Petrichor, Vins Et jurisdiction on behalf of Cross-Defendants
Domaines Perrin SC, SAS Miraval Studios, SASU Marc-Olivier Perrin, SAS Miraval Provence,
9 Le Domaine, and SAS Distilleries de la Riviera SAS Familles Perrin, SAS Petrichor, Vins Et
Domaines Perrin SC, SASU Le Domaine, and
10 SAS Distilleries de la Riviera
11 Paul D. Murphy (SB No. 159556)
Daniel N. Csillag (SB No. 266773)
12 MURPHY ROSEN LLP
100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1300
13 Santa Monica, CA 90401
Tel: (310) 899-3300
14 Fax: (310) 399-7201
15 Email: pmurphy@murphyrosen.com,
dcsillag@murphyrosen.com
16
Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant
17 Angelina Jolie
18
BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused the document(s) to be
19 sent to each interested party at the email addresses listed above or on the attached service list. I did

20 not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other
indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
21
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
22 foregoing is true and correct.

23 Executed on March 25, 2024, in Los Angeles, California

24 /s/ Lynette W. Suksnguan
Lynette W. Suksnguan
25

26

27

28

-20-
PROOF OF SERVICE