Timeline: Key Events in the Hermès–LVMH Dispute
- October 2010 – LVMH’s secret 17% Hermès stake revealed to the public and AMF
- December 2010 – Hermès family founds a private holding company; secures 50.2% of its shares
- December 2011 – LVMH raises stake to 22.6% despite restrictions
- 2012 – AMF confirms “wrongdoing”; Hermès International pursues legal action against LVMH, demanding divestment
- July 2013 – AMF sanctions committee fines LVMH €10.4 million
- September 2013 – LVMH agrees to distribute 23% Hermès stake to its shareholders and institutional investors
- 2015 – Forged share certificates inconsistencies flagged; Hermès files forgery complaint against unknown parties
- November 2025 – Paris Judicial Court summons Arnault, Agache, Financière Agache, LVMH
A €13 Billion Secret: How LVMH Quietly Built a Stake in Hermès
Based on a report by French news publication Libération as of November 20,2025 Bernard Arnault, the founder of the luxury empire LVMH, along with his two holding companies Agache and Financière Agache, and the group itself, were summoned before a Paris Judicial Court. The proceedings aim to revisit events surrounding the 2010 attempt by LVMH to acquire one of the last major independent fashion houses, Hermès.
In October 2010, the French financial market was jolted by the revelation that LVMH had quietly acquired 17% (seventeen percent) stake in Hermès, putting it in a strategic position for a hostile takeover, or in colloquial terms, a coup. Though LVMH and its executives claimed that they were not bidding for any takeover or aggressive control of Hermès, maintaining that the investment was purely strategic. Hermès, however, responded swiftly. Amid an ongoing investigation by the French financial regulator, the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF), the Hermès family took defensive action.
Hermès’s Defensive Response: Building the Family Holding Company
By December 2010, the Hermès family had taken a decisive step to secure its long-term control over the company. Family members transferred their shares into a newly created private holding company, which collectively controlled 50.2% of Hermès’ share capital.
The purpose of this structure was simple: to prevent an outsider from gradually accumulating enough shares to gain influence over the company. The holding company also gave family members a right of first refusal, meaning that if one family member wished to sell their shares, the shares would first have to be offered to the holding company or other family members before being sold to an external buyer. This significantly reduced the risk of a hostile takeover.
However, the creation of the holding company raised an important legal issue under French securities law.
At the time, any person or entity that acquired more than one-third of the shares or voting rights of a listed company was generally required to launch a mandatory tender offer for all remaining shares. The rationale behind this rule is to protect minority shareholders. If someone gains control of a company, minority investors should be given an opportunity to sell their shares under the same conditions.
Since the newly created Hermès holding company would immediately control more than 50% of the company’s capital, it would ordinarily have been required to make a buyout offer to all other Hermès shareholders. Such an obligation would have been extremely costly and impractical.
To avoid this outcome, the Hermès family sought an exemption from the French financial regulator, the Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF). Their argument was that the transaction did not represent a genuine change of control. Before the holding company was created, the Hermès family already collectively owned more than 70% of the company’s shares. The restructuring merely concentrated those existing family holdings into a single legal vehicle. No new investor was entering the company, and no outside party was acquiring control.
The AMF accepted this reasoning and granted an exemption from the mandatory tender offer requirement. As a result, the holding company was allowed to exceed the statutory ownership threshold without being required to purchase the remaining shares held by minority investors.
This exemption was crucial because it enabled the Hermès family to strengthen and formalise its control over the company while preserving the existing ownership balance. It also created a powerful defensive mechanism against future takeover attempts, ensuring that control of Hermès remained firmly within the family.
The AMF Ruling and LVMH’s €10.4 Million Fine
Meanwhile, the AMF ultimately ruled that LVMH would not be permitted to acquire additional shares from minority shareholders in a way that could lead to a takeover, effectively blocking any path to control.
However, despite these restrictions, LVMH continued to increase its stake. By December 2011, the group announced it had raised its shareholding in Hermès to 22.6% (twenty-two-point six percent), further intensifying tensions between the two luxury giants.
What followed was a back and forth of criminal complaints between Hermès and LVMH accusing each other of “insider trading, collusion and stock price manipulation” and “blackmail, slander and unfair competition” respectively.
In 2012, AMF announced that it had indeed uncovered evidence of “wrongdoing” on LVMH’s part in its handling of the Hermès stake. Despite this, Bernard Arnault maintained a defensive stance. Addressing at the company’s annual general meeting in Paris, he stated: “We found ourselves owning shares in this company (Hermès) unexpectedly. We had not planned to be shareholders in this firm. We made a financial investment and that financial investment had an outcome that we had not expected.”
What an unexpected surprise indeed… if only the rest of us could wake up one morning and accidentally own a sizeable stake in Hermès.
The 2014 Truce: How LVMH and Hermès Settled
Irrespective, LVMH was subject to an investigation to determine insider trading and share price manipulation in its bid to acquire Hermès shares. At the same time, Hermès International pursued legal action demanding that LVMH divest its holdings, arguing that the shares had been acquired through improper and deceptive means.
The dispute reached a turning point in July, 2013 when AMF Sanctions committee penalised LVMH with a $10.4 million fine. Soon after, in September, 2013, following an intervention by a French Court, LVMH announced that it would refrain from purchasing additional shares in Hermès for the next five years as well as distribute its 23% (twenty-three percent) stake in Hermès to its shareholders and institutional investors.
Nicolas Puech’s New Claim: Were the Shares Stolen?
Nicolas Puech, 82, heir to 6% (six percent) of Hermès capital holding a value of roughly €13 billion (current market value) has now initiated a suit against LVMH for having acquired his shares via a criminal conspiracy involving his former wealth manager Eric Freymond.
According to Puech, Freymond disposed of his shares in Hermès without authorisation, either squandering the proceeds or concealing them in undisclosed accounts.
What Are Bearer Shares — and Why Are They So Easy to Steal?
Puech’s shares were structured as bearer shares – equity security owned entirely by the person or entity that holds the physical stock certificate, thus the name ‘bearer’ share. The issuing firm neither registers the owner of the stock nor tracks transfers of ownership; the company disperses dividends to bearer shares when a physical coupon is presented to the firm. Because the share is not registered to any authority, transferring the ownership of the stock involves only delivering the physical document – hence making such transactions extremely difficult to trace.
Even though an AMF investigation in 2013 had already indicated that only a small fraction of the heir’s securities remains in his possession, Puech recounted that he had been reassured to the contrary by notarised certificates provided by his advisor, certificates which were later revealed to be merely papers of convenience.
Until 2015, certificates affirming Puech’s six percent (6%) stake, bearing what appeared to be his signature, continued to be submitted annually to Hermès. The inconsistencies eventually raised red flags, prompting the company to file a complaint against unknown parties for forgery.
Now, the 9th Civil Chambers of the Paris Court are being faced with a mountain of forged documents, fabricated to facilitate the transfer of funds as to provide a basis for legal proceedings and to justify the questionable transfers of ownership and funds It must also be noted that since LVMH chief acquired shares that may well have been stolen from their rightful owner and subsequently resold them as a part of the “armed truce” signed with Hermès in 2014, effectively pocketing a colossal capital gain of €3.8 billion in the process. Should Arnault or his group ever be held criminally liable in the coming years, whether for complicity in the disappearance of the shares or for knowingly receiving stolen property, they would be required to pay Puech a massive sum in damages.
What’s Next for Bernard Arnault and LVMH?
For his part, Bernard Arnault continues to maintain that LVMH was absolutely unaware of the dubious origins of the shares it acquired. Safe to say, the billionaire now finds himself navigating an increasingly precarious legal landscape.
On 29 May, 2026 Financial Times reported that French prosecutors had placed three more suspects under formal investigation as part of their widening probe into the disappearance of billions of euros worth of Hermès shares suspected of being linked to LVMH boss Bernard Arnault’s failed takeover of the company.
The Paris prosecutor’s office confirmed on Friday that French prosecutors had in recent months placed three Swiss lawyers Alexandre Montavon, François Besse and Vanja Megevand under formal investigation on suspicion that they participated in defrauding Puech of his shares “to the benefit of LVMH”. Montavon and Besse are also being investigated for allegations of aggravated breach of trust and receiving stolen goods.
However, the fact remains that one of the chief suspects in the case Eric Freymond died in an incident which has been largely been reported as a suicide while on a bail.
A formal investigation in the French system does not imply guilt and no indictments have yet been issued. All the suspects deny the allegations against them, the prosecutor’s office said, and the investigation is ongoing.
LVMH has condemned the suit against it as “unfounded allegations seeking to reinterpret the conditions of LVMH’s entry into Hermès International’s capital”, adding it “reserves the right to take any action necessary to assert its rights”.
Follow this post for more updates on the matter <3
