Bertrand Puech: "Hermes is the subject of constant attacks"
Hermes is Monday night in Paris the first general meeting of shareholders since its entry in October 2010, the capital of LVMH (with 20% today). The heirs, who hold 72% stake, hoping to get the green light in September the Court of Appeal of Paris to their proposed freezing holding a majority of shares, to defend against a raid by Bernard Arnault. Bertrand Puech, president of Émile Hermès family (sole general partner of the listed company Hermes International), a member of the fifth generation of heirs, is against the proliferation of litigation against the project, including those of the Association for the Defence of Minority Shareholders chaired by Colette Neuville.
LE FIGARO. – What will you announce to the general meeting of Hermes on Monday night?
Bertrand Puech.- We will announce, as we know already that 2010 was one of the finest, if not the best year, Hermes has lived for 174 years. The results were extraordinary in an economic context that was not favorable. This allows us to pay a dividend of 1.50 euro increased significantly compared to normal.
LVMH will he represented and he can enjoy his voting rights? Are you afraid of possible obstructions of the meeting?
The shareholders are all invited. LVMH said it would. He always said, if his friendship, in any case his pacifism. I am not chairman of the meeting but things should happen normally, as usual.
What do you think of recent legal actions taken by minority shareholders against the proposed family holding Hermes?
I do not understand.It's very sad and painful for members of a family committed to an ethic of openness and honesty for generations to be scratched before the courts, then we're just defending the values of quality. You should know that Ms. Neuville is a minority shareholder, who owns a single share, which represents only herself. She can not speak for the association which is not approved by the AMF. And it is wrong to fight. If she wanted to play a role in defense of minority, why does she not be interested in the fact that one shareholder said suddenly have 17% of our capital, purchased since 2008 without making it to the markets? I think she has given way to a big bad wolf.