Stoli Group filed legal documents on Friday, June 12, 2026, accusing Brad Pitt's legal team of running a covert subpoena through Stoli's Texas bankruptcy case in December 2025 to pull discovery for the parallel $164 million Château Miraval dispute, where Pitt has sued ex-wife Angelina Jolie over the 2021 sale of her vineyard stake to the Russian-founded vodka company. TMZ obtained the filing at 4:45 p.m. PDT and updated the piece an hour later with a Pitt-camp response — paraphrased by an unnamed source close to the actor — that called the dispute "silly" and attributed the late notification to internal counsel miscommunication rather than strategic withholding. No eligible direct quote appears in the source.
The procedural detail Stoli surfaced is the more interesting beat. Pitt's team's subpoena to a bank — issued through the Texas bankruptcy that Stoli filed earlier in 2025 — reportedly asked for emails between Stoli and the bank that referenced Vladimir Putin, Russia generally, and any Russian assets the company held. The Miraval case has not yet hit trial, and the subpoena Stoli describes would have produced discovery material that Pitt's team could have used to build the Russian-oligarch narrative his original 2022 filings established.
The Miraval dispute has now run four years. Pitt sued Jolie in 2022 after she sold her 50% stake in the Provence vineyard to Tenute del Mondo, the wine arm of the Russian-founded SPI Group conglomerate that also owns Stoli. Pitt has argued that the sale violated a verbal handshake agreement the couple had made not to dispose of their respective Miraval stakes without the other's consent; Jolie's filings have argued there was no such agreement and that the sale was the cleanest exit available during the divorce.
The four-year run has produced a quasi-permanent procedural shape. Discovery has been the engine of the litigation — Jolie's team has fought motions about Pitt's communications, Pitt's team has fought motions about Jolie's, and both sides have wielded subpoenas to third parties as the leverage the underlying dispute does not by itself produce. Friday's Stoli filing is the latest in that pattern; what makes it distinct is that the third party itself has now stepped into the foreground rather than serving as the silent recipient of a subpoena.
His personal life sits a clean register removed. Pitt's relationship with jewelry executive Ines de Ramon, whose
recent LA appearance with the actor
was the most public confirmation of the relationship's stability, has held outside the Miraval headlines, and the contrast — high-stakes commercial litigation on the left side of the news week, low-key personal life on the right — has been the rhythm of the Pitt PR cycle since 2023. Friday's filing does not change that rhythm so much as widen the gap.
The Texas bankruptcy itself is the legal undertext. Stoli's bankruptcy filing in 2025 was tied to the broader squeeze on Russian-linked companies after the 2022 sanctions cycle and the years of European litigation that followed; the company has consistently argued it operates independently of any Russian ownership, but the discovery questions Pitt's team reportedly asked the bank track exactly the questions the bankruptcy court itself had been asking. That parallel is what makes the December subpoena harder for Stoli to characterize as cleanly improper.
What lands next is the procedural sequence the Texas bankruptcy court sets. Stoli's Friday filing requests a hearing; Pitt's team will file a response within the statutory window; and the bankruptcy judge will rule on whether the subpoena's contents have to be produced in the Miraval case or whether they have to be returned. Neither outcome resolves Miraval itself — but the ruling will function as the most material discovery decision either case has produced in a year, and the timing puts it on the same calendar as the long-delayed Miraval bench-trial date.
