A decades-old battle between LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton SE and Hermès International has returned to the centre of the luxury industry after Reuters reported previously undisclosed details from legal documents concerning Hermès heir Nicolas Puech. Reuters reported on September 17 that LVMH signed a 2002 agreement calling for the purchase of Hermès shares belonging to Puech and other family heirs, while Puech is now pursuing litigation alleging that his roughly 6% stake disappeared through schemes involving his late wealth manager, Eric Freymond.
LVMH denies involvement in the alleged misappropriation of Puech’s fortune. In a June court filing cited by Reuters, the luxury group said it had never contemplated acquiring Puech’s stake, particularly against his wishes, while a previously unreported 2017 Swiss filing said the 2002 agreement was never executed and that LVMH had been unable to establish whether Freymond possessed authority from Puech to sell the shares.
The distinction is central because Reuters’ discovery of the agreement provides new documentary evidence about LVMH’s historic relationship with Puech’s adviser, but it does not establish that LVMH unlawfully acquired Puech’s shares or participated in wrongdoing.
What did Reuters uncover about the 2002 LVMH agreement?
Reuters reported that legal documents show LVMH representatives and Freymond entered into an agreement in November 2002 covering millions of Hermès shares belonging to Puech and other family heirs. The document contemplated purchases beginning after the expected departure of longtime Hermès chief Jean-Louis Dumas, who ultimately retired in 2006.
The news agency also reported that LVMH and the Arnault family holding company paid Freymond’s management firm at least $20 million in commissions and other fees between 2001 and 2009 while Freymond assisted LVMH’s efforts to accumulate Hermès shares. LVMH acknowledged in earlier Swiss litigation that it worked with Freymond on acquiring Hermès stock, while stating that the 2002 agreement involving Puech’s stake was placed on hold because Puech’s intentions and Freymond’s authority could not be confirmed.
LVMH told the Swiss court that it never asked Freymond to execute the agreement and that the document was destroyed in late 2010, according to Reuters. An LVMH spokesperson declined to answer Reuters’ latest questions about the agreement or payments to Freymond.
Why is Nicolas Puech seeking €14 billion in damages?
Puech is a descendant of Hermès founder Thierry Hermès and inherited one of the larger individual stakes held by members of the founding family. Reuters reported that he says he discovered only in 2022, after ending his relationship with Freymond, that his shares were no longer under his control.
Puech filed litigation last year seeking €14 billion in damages from parties that might ultimately be found responsible for the alleged loss of his fortune. His approximately 6% Hermès stake would currently be worth around $10 billion, according to Reuters’ calculation based on prevailing share prices. The lawsuit names LVMH and Chairman Bernard Arnault among multiple defendants, but the existence of those claims does not constitute a finding against them.
French prosecutors are conducting a parallel criminal investigation. Reuters reported that prosecutors are examining whether Swiss lawyer Alexandre Montavon participated in any misappropriation of Puech’s shares for LVMH’s benefit. Montavon has not been criminally charged and, through his lawyer, denies wrongdoing.
Freymond denied wrongdoing before his death in 2025. Swiss authorities investigated his death and concluded that it was suicide, according to Reuters.
How does the dispute connect with LVMH’s historic attempt to build a Hermès stake?
LVMH’s interest in Hermès became one of European luxury’s most famous corporate battles.
Bernard Arnault surprised markets in October 2010 by disclosing that LVMH had accumulated a 17% holding in Hermès. The stake eventually reached approximately 23%, triggering a fierce response from members of the Hermès founding family, who strengthened their control through a shareholder structure designed to limit the possibility of a takeover.
LVMH subsequently agreed to distribute most of its Hermès position to its own shareholders under a 2014 settlement that effectively ended the takeover confrontation. The agreement was widely viewed as closing one of the luxury industry’s longest corporate battles.
Puech’s missing-shares litigation has reopened questions about how LVMH initially assembled portions of that stake. Reuters said it could not establish whether Puech’s missing shares ultimately became part of the LVMH holding or which Hermès heirs sold shares through Freymond.
Why does the case matter commercially to LVMH and Hermès?
Hermès and LVMH represent two very different models of luxury-industry power.
LVMH built the world’s largest luxury conglomerate by acquiring and developing dozens of brands across fashion, jewellery, watches, cosmetics, champagne and hospitality. Hermès has remained more tightly controlled by its founding family and focused on scarcity, craftsmanship and extremely high-end products such as Birkin and Kelly handbags.
That contrast helped make their earlier corporate battle symbolically significant. LVMH represented a highly successful acquisition-led luxury empire, while Hermès presented itself as a family-controlled house determined to retain independence.
The renewed litigation therefore has reputational implications even before any court reaches conclusions about Puech’s allegations. Reuters’ discovery of a 2002 agreement adds documentary history to a dispute that had previously centred partly on what LVMH and Puech’s advisers intended more than two decades ago.
LVMH shares were around 1.1% higher and Hermès shares around 0.6% higher in trading referenced alongside Reuters’ September 17 report, indicating no immediate broad market selloff tied to the disclosures.
What remains unknown about Nicolas Puech’s Hermès shares?
The most important question remains unanswered: what ultimately happened to the shares.
Reuters could not determine whether LVMH acquired Puech-owned stock, whether another party received the shares or what money, if any, was paid in connection with their disappearance. LVMH has said any acquisition of shares belonging to Puech would have been unintentional and denies responsibility for misappropriating his holdings.
The French criminal investigation and Puech’s civil case could eventually provide additional documentary evidence. Until then, the known facts establish that a 2002 agreement existed and that LVMH had a more extensive commercial relationship with Freymond than had previously been publicly detailed. They do not establish that LVMH unlawfully obtained Puech’s stake.
Nearly 16 years after LVMH publicly disclosed its surprise Hermès holding, the luxury industry’s most famous ownership battle has therefore acquired another unresolved chapter.
Discover more from Business-News-Today.com
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
