Recent celebrity divorces have been accompanied by calm, neutral-sounding statements affirming the couple’s mutual love and respect. Such a tidy bow is often surprising, given how high emotions run in a breakup. It also gives a whiff of an underlying confidentiality agreement. More and more, high-profile couples are putting a full Non-disclosure Agreement (NDA) in their divorce settlements or prenups.
In the past, the focus was often on keeping personal details or financial data out of public documents so the press couldn’t leak them. But the new NDA Divorce is designed to prevent one’s future ex-spouse from being the one to disclose confidential information. Today, rather than relying solely on court filings, many couples negotiate as much of their divorce settlement as possible in private and then include penalties for noncompliance with their confidentiality provisions.
When Reputation is on the Line
One recent example of a probable confidentiality agreement came with the highly publicized split of Hugh Jackman and his wife Deborra-Lee Furness. Since their 2023 separation came on the heels of the revealed affair between Jackman and his co-star Sutton Foster, the public watched to see how the split would fall out in the media.
Two years later, the divorce was finalized, and Furness issued a cryptic statement: "My heart and compassion goes out to everyone who has traversed the traumatic journey of betrayal."
The statement acknowledged her hurt feelings, but revealed remarkably little. It was likely a wise and careful attempt to express a bit of her feelings, but within the bounds of a non-disclosure agreement.
Reportedly, Furness filed the actual divorce petition in early May 2025, along with a Marital Settlement Agreement executed by both parties. This is a common format of the new approach to divorce, where lawyers and/or mediators help the couple hammer out a mutual agreement and then present it to the judge to approve. Since marriage is a legal state, the court has to approve its dissolution. But within limits, adults are free to strike their own agreements regarding property division, etc. (The couple’s children are no longer minors, so custody was not an issue. Regardless of personal preferences, child custody decisions still must be decided under the “best interests of the child” standard.)
It's believed that there was no prenup between Jackson and Furness. In that example, a decades-long marriage where one spouse is a high-earning celebrity while the other takes the primary role in parenting and household management, the law would view Jackson’s earnings during the marriage to be part of the marital estate to divide.
For a celebrity such as Jackman, his reputation as a beloved entertainer has significant future economic value as well. It may be worth negotiating a more generous financial settlement in exchange for stronger confidentiality protections against details or reveals that could damage that reputation. Both sides receive certainty, and both accept penalties if those terms are violated.
Of course, protecting a reputation is much more complicated than it once was. Before social media, a typical divorce agreement might include a "non-disparagement" clause prohibiting either spouse from making negative public statements about the other. Today's digital world is much more complicated. A spouse can avoid posting critical content, but what if they “like” others’ critical comments? Or use friends or family to issue “proxy posts”?
The Jackman/Furness split also illustrates this potential problem. Before the divorce was finalized and the marital settlement agreement was filed, Furness reportedly "liked" a social media post criticizing Jackman. A close friend of hers also posted comments critical of Jackman cheating on Furness. There’s no suggestion Furness asked her friend to post, but it illustrates the myriad ways a hurt ex-spouse could get back at an ex online, with a public and press ever eager for salacious gossip.
For that reason, carefully drafted agreements may define "disparagement" broadly enough to include not only creating negative content, but also liking, sharing, reposting, or otherwise promoting someone else's attacks. Some agreements even prohibit spouses from encouraging friends or family members to post damaging details on their behalf.
That does not mean courts will enforce every restriction a lawyer can draft. Like most contracts, confidentiality provisions must be reasonable and not overbroad. New York courts are generally more willing to enforce agreements that prevent deliberate attacks on a former spouse's reputation than provisions attempting to silence every discussion of a marriage.
Keeping Finances and Company Secrets Private
An NDA filed with the divorce can also be a good strategy to ensure the ex-spouse doesn’t disclose confidential financial data or company secrets. The 2026 divorce of billionaire hedge funder John Paulson and his ex-wife, Jenny Paulson, brought these concerns to the forefront.
The couple had spent years haggling over how to split a fortune estimated at roughly 4 – 5 billion dollars. Finally, in May 2026, they settled their divorce with another happy, neutral statement issued about how they’ve “come to the decision to amicably settle their divorce.” It also clarified that “neither party nor any family nor friends of the parties will have any further comment.” After years of sometimes public turmoil, the details were all buttoned up. This “happy” and silent ending is also likely the product of a non-disclosure agreement.
Before a confidentiality provision was presumably negotiated, leaked emails showed the state of the negotiations. In 2024, John reportedly offered hundreds of millions in cash, which Jenny called "disrespectful, shameful and humiliating" in a 2022 email that later became public. She stated she wanted closer to an even split, arguing that most of the wealth was built during the marriage. “In my heart and my spirit I feel I deserve a 50/50 split,” she wrote in an email, “[or] 60/40 is OK because there have been other similar divorce arrangements.”
It would seem the law was closer to Jenny’s side in those discussions. Theirs was also a long marriage, reportedly with no prenup. Since the vast majority of John's wealth, including his historic $20 billion housing short profit, was generated during their 21-year marriage, it would legally be classified as marital assets to be shared equitably.
Meanwhile, Jenny had filed a separate $1 billion fraud lawsuit, alleging John had engaged in illegal maneuvers to shield assets from her. The narrative of evidence in her lawsuit suggested John was attempting to maneuver money out of the pot that would be considered “marital property” before the divorce was finalized. The leaked emails and Jenny’s civil lawsuit show what kind of information often can come out before NDAs are in play.
On May 4, 2026, the parties filed notices resolving both the divorce case and dismissing the civil lawsuit. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed, and neither side commented on the final settlement besides their joint statement. Observers could guess that John made a financial offer worth Jenny’s while to adhere to a strict confidentiality agreement. Confidentiality agreements can include penalties for non-compliance, and condition future payouts on continued compliance. These terms are negotiated as part of the settlement.
There are legal limits to what can be agreed to in a non-disclosure agreement. They can’t be used to shield illegal acts, for example, or to prohibit the other party from reporting illegal acts or from cooperating with authorities. In John’s case regarding asset transfers, if he engaged in the alleged fraudulent activity, it would be up to the authorities to investigate further if they saw cause. The NDA can’t prohibit Jenny from responding to subpoenas in such an investigation, but it can keep her from voluntarily disclosing any more information about their financial dealings.
Brand Management 101
The divorce of Anna Wintour's daughter Bee Shaffer illustrates how an NDA might be used to protect a brand name during divorce. What was interesting there is that Shaffer and her then-husband, Francesco Carrozzini, posed together, arm in arm, at the Met Gala on May 4, and then filed divorce papers 11 days later.
It’s easy to speculate that this timing was agreed upon and orchestrated so as not to disrupt the Gala, of which Wintour is the chair, and is a huge event for Vogue. In this way, NDAs can be used to control the timing of an announcement much like a PR strategy rollout. An NDA or a confidentiality clause can dictate when and how a divorce is to be announced. This can ensure that neither party will blindside the other with a solo press leak that could harm the brand.
The Shaffer-Carrozzini announcement also included a joint statement:
"After 10 wonderful years together, we have decided to separate. Although our career paths led us in different directions, we remain the best of friends and are devoted parents to our son, Oliver."
Another upbeat statement with no recrimination. This curated media messaging can serve to show a united front and communicate that both spouses are working together to enforce their agreement. Their additional statement, that "This will be our only public comment on the matter, and we kindly ask for privacy for our family during this transition," also demonstrates to curious paparazzi that pestering for details will likely be fruitless.
The result in all three cases is a new kind of high-profile divorce. Rather than fighting their most personal disputes through headlines and social media, many couples are negotiating comprehensive private agreements first and speaking publicly only within the boundaries they have agreed to respect.
Protect Your Privacy Before the Divorce Becomes Public
For executives, business owners, public figures, and other high-profile individuals, confidentiality should not be an afterthought. The right strategy can help protect sensitive financial information, business interests, and personal reputations before private disputes become public narratives. Our attorneys at Bikel Rosenthal & Schanfield LLP counsel high-net-worth clients through discreet, carefully managed divorces. Contact us today at 212.682.6222 or online to discuss how privacy protections can be built into your divorce strategy from the outset.