A high-stakes legal drama with deep implications for cross-border wealth management, family governance, and luxury asset ownership is unfolding quietly in a U.S. federal court.
At the center is a dispute that blends the discretion of old European family money with the strategic ambitions of Gulf sovereign wealth — and a vanished €14 billion fortune in one of the world’s most exclusive brands.
The conflict pits Honor America Capital LLC (HAC) — a newly formed investment vehicle backed by Qatar’s royal family — against Nicolas Puech, an 82-year-old Hermès heir and great-great-grandson of founder Thierry Hermès. The asset at stake is extraordinary: 6,082,615 Hermès shares, representing roughly 5.8% of the company’s capital, a block large enough to influence both corporate governance and market perception of Hermès International.
For wealth advisors and RIAs, the case is more than a corporate soap opera. It offers a cautionary tale about liquidity, title certainty, and counterparty risk when dealing in concentrated holdings of family-controlled companies — particularly when the seller’s beneficial ownership is in question.
The Deal That Collapsed
According to HAC’s now-sealed complaint, the parties entered into a binding stock purchase agreement in February 2025. HAC claims that funding for the acquisition was fully secured by Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, the Emir of Qatar, and that both sides agreed “time was of the essence” with a prompt closing. The deal was initially set for March 3, 2025.
But Puech delayed three times. On March 19, his counsel notified HAC that the transaction was canceled. The reason: despite months of negotiations and HAC’s pre-arranged plans to sell 85% of the shares onward, Puech did not have possession or control of the shares. His counsel said he could not obtain them and further attempts to close would be “futile.”
HAC’s response was swift: it sued for breach of contract, seeking either specific performance — a court order compelling Puech to deliver the shares — or more than $1.3 billion in damages for lost profits, opportunity cost, and reputational harm.
Puech’s Defense: No Shares, No Deal
Puech’s legal team rejects HAC’s claims outright, with his attorney stating that Puech “played no role in the proposed sale and was unaware of the deal until reading about it in the press.” They argue that the real issue is the unresolved mystery of the missing shares — a matter entangled in decades of private wealth management arrangements, opaque transfers, and litigation across multiple jurisdictions.
The Mystery of the Vanished Hermès Stake
The dispute revives long-standing questions about what happened to Puech’s once-enormous Hermès holding. The origins trace back to 2001, when shares presumed to be his were allegedly moved or sold without his full awareness. Matters became more complex in 2011, when the Hermès family formed the H51 holding company to pool 51% of shares and lock them in for 20 years to fend off a takeover attempt by LVMH. Puech declined to join H51, leaving his shares outside the family’s protective structure.
For years, Puech has claimed that he was unknowingly stripped of his stake by his longtime wealth manager, Éric Freymond. In Swiss filings, he described a decades-long hands-off approach to his wealth: signing blank documents, allowing all correspondence to be routed to Freymond’s office, and delegating substantial control over his holdings.
Evidence presented in related cases suggests his Hermès holdings dwindled from over 6 million shares in 1999 to fewer than 140,000 in 2012 — and to zero by 2020. By 2012, Puech was reportedly voting at shareholder meetings using borrowed shares.
Freymond, who died in July 2025, denied wrongdoing. His legal team maintained that he acted under a broad discretionary mandate and that Puech signed off on all major transactions. Swiss courts have thus far sided with this view: in July 2024, a Geneva appellate court rejected Puech’s claims, finding no evidence of misconduct.
Litigation continues in France, where Hermès itself filed a forgery complaint in 2015 and Puech has sued for breach of trust. The exact chain of transactions leading to the disappearance of the shares remains undisclosed.
Why This Matters for Advisors
The HAC–Puech dispute underscores the practical risks wealth advisors face when high-value assets are tied to uncertain beneficial ownership. Even a signed sale agreement becomes meaningless if the seller lacks control over the asset. For advisors guiding ultra-high-net-worth clients, especially those with concentrated single-stock positions, the case reinforces three core principles:
-
Title Verification Is Non-Negotiable — In family-controlled companies with complex histories of shareholding, verifying actual control and settlement capability is critical before executing a transaction.
-
Intermediary Risk Management — Delegating significant discretion to wealth managers or trustees without robust oversight mechanisms can create vulnerabilities that may be discovered only decades later.
-
Cross-Jurisdictional Complexity — Disputes involving multiple legal systems can stall or derail recovery efforts, especially when the asset is movable, transferable, or thinly documented.
Luxury Market Ambitions Collide
From Qatar’s perspective, this acquisition attempt was part of a broader strategy to expand its luxury portfolio, which already includes Harrods, Printemps, Valentino, and Balmain. Securing a nearly 6% stake in Hermès would have been a landmark addition, both symbolically and financially.
For Hermès, the reappearance of Puech’s name in the headlines underscores an unresolved internal chapter. On a July 30, 2025 earnings call, Executive Chairman Axel Dumas stated, “I have known for a long time that Nicolas Puech no longer holds his shares. That’s why we started legal proceedings.” He also expressed doubt that Hermès will ever recover them.
The Alignment of Former Adversaries
Ironically, Puech — once considered the family’s black sheep for his perceived openness to LVMH’s overtures during its failed takeover bid — now finds himself aligned with Hermès in a parallel fight against the man who managed his fortune. Both are pursuing claims related to the same vanished stake, though from different legal angles and in different courts.
Whether Puech was defrauded, negligent, or simply inattentive, the result is the same: a once-extraordinary fortune has evaporated, leaving behind a trail of litigation and unanswered questions.
Implications for High-Net-Worth Clients
For advisors managing generational wealth, this case serves as a reminder that prestige assets are not immune to operational risk. The value of a luxury brand shareholding — even one worth billions — can erode entirely if governance, oversight, and documentation lapse.
In situations where clients hold shares outside a family pooling structure (like H51), the vulnerability to third-party influence increases. Family governance mechanisms, though sometimes restrictive, can be powerful safeguards against asset dissipation.
Additionally, the case illustrates the reputational risks tied to high-profile transactions. HAC claims not only financial losses but also reputational harm, highlighting that in the world of UHNW asset deals, credibility and deal certainty are as valuable as the capital itself.
Looking Ahead
The U.S. court will determine whether Puech must perform under the 2025 agreement with HAC or whether the absence of the shares invalidates the contract entirely. Even if HAC prevails, enforcing a judgment when the underlying asset is missing will be challenging.
For wealth advisors, the strategic takeaway is clear: in large, complex, and high-profile asset transactions, the sophistication of the buyer, the prestige of the seller, and the historical value of the asset do not substitute for rigorous verification, legal diligence, and multi-jurisdictional contingency planning.
Until the courts resolve the matter, the fate of this €14 billion block of Hermès shares will remain an open question — and a case study in how concentrated wealth, once unmoored from oversight, can disappear from even the most privileged of hands.
