One of the descendants of the luxury fashion house Hermès, Nicolas Puech, tries to rewrite his will by giving a fortune to his gardener and “craftsman”. The businessman’s intention is to adopt the professional so that he can benefit from the more than R$ 56 billion in his bank account. We’re not that lucky, are we?! However, the decision triggers a legal tsunami for the NGO Swiss Association Isocrates, which initially claimed the inheritance.
Puech is currently 80 years old, remains single and has never had children. He is the largest single shareholder in Hermès, holding a stake of around 5% in the brand, whose annual sales are about 11.6 billion euros (R$61.3 billion). The market value now exceeds 202 billion euros (R$1 trillion). In 2014, the businessman withdrew from the brand’s board of directors, but retained all his shares and is considered one of the richest men in Switzerland, where he lives.
According to Tribune de Genève, little is known about the employee who could inherit the jackpot. Apparently it is a 51yearold man “from a modest Moroccan family”, married to a Spanish woman and father of two children. However, his name has not been revealed. Because of Puech’s age, he had to submit a formal application to adopt the employee. According to the newspaper, “adult adoption is not impossible in Switzerland, but it is unusual.” If the process goes ahead, the gardener can earn “at least half” of the fortune.
The brand is considered one of the most traditional in the world (Photo: nic chi on Unsplash)
Shortly after the story broke, however, there was a standoff with the Isocrates Foundation. Puech signed a successor agreement with the organization in 2011, but made a “change of course” in 2023 towards “other testamentary arrangements”. The Foundation’s Secretary General, Nicolas Borsinger, commented on the case in an interview. “Based on the information available to the foundation, this wish to abruptly and unilaterally terminate the inheritance contract appears to be void,” said Borsinger. He further regretted that “their charitable activities” were “at risk in their sustainability” due to circumstances “completely beyond their control.”