L’Oreal heiress claims family feud may jeopardise business
The 87-year old heiress, who is also Europe’s richest woman, claims that a bitter feud with her daughter, Françoise Bettencourt-Meyers may put future ownership of the business in the balance.
In a statement issued by her spokesperson, Bettencourt said: “I hope my daughter will not destabilise the group which I and my father have wanted to be French.”
The statement is the latest development in a saga that has had gossip columns and financial publications alike devoting significant page space to the unfolding story.
Last month the saga took on a political edge when tapes of conversations, recorded by Bettencourt’s former butler, were interpreted by some to suggest she may have been avoiding paying tax on a certain part of her fortune.
In addition, there were suggestions that the tapes highlighted the possible involvement and favouritism of the wife of France’s employment minister Eric Woerth, who at the time the conversations were recorded, was the country’s budgetary minister.
As the plot thickened, the finger of responsibility ultimately pointed to French president Nicolas Sarkozy, who last week went on live French television to deny allegations that his reigning political party had illegally received funds from Bettencourt.
Bettencourt still holds a 31 per cent stake in the business, which she inherited from her father, who established the L’Oreal name in 1909.
Her personal fortune has been estimated to be around $20bn (€16.3bn) and her daughter has for some time been claiming the elderly lady is unable to look after her finances.
This stake makes Bettencourt the principle shareholder in the business, which means she can still exercise significant authority, although she has traditionally taken a back seat with regards to its governance.
Likewise, Bettencourt has repeatedly stated that she has no interest in selling her stake in the business, preferring to keep the family connection alive.
Throughout the continuing Bettencourt saga L’Oreal executives have preferred to maintain silence on the matter and have refused to comment on the outcome it may or may not have on the way the business is run.
