Bitter Family Feuds That Broke Businesses

Lauren Glen
Updated February 1, 2025 12 items

Facebook

X.com

Threads

Copy link

Ranked By
268voters1.2Kvotes
Voting Rules

Vote up the most ferocious family feuds. 

Throughout history, families have been known to produce some of the most scandalous, community-shattering conflicts. From ancient Greek mythology to modern tabloid media outlets, the world has witnessed its fair share of family drama

Recognizing this, choosing to run a business with family members should seem like an obviously regrettable decision - as even the closest families experience sibling rivalries and arguments between generations of kin. And while some family-owned companies seem to successfully brush their familial disagreements aside for the betterment of their businesses, the families featured in this list found the rifts between their blood relatives to be too wide to continue on without suffering lawsuits, public scandal, and even murder. 

Over 200 Ranker voters have come together to rank this list of Bitter Family Feuds That Broke Businesses
This list is dynamically ranked based on user voting. The order reflects the consensus of our voters and is not influenced by paid placements or editorial bias.

  • 1

    The Supplier Of McDonald’s French Fries Had A Succession Problem

    When brothers Harrison and Wallace McCain, along with help from their siblings Robert and Andrew, founded McCain Foods in 1957, they intended to create the world's first marketable frozen french fries. It wasn't long before the company expanded exponentially, eventually landing a deal with McDonald's and KFC to become the world's leading frozen potato distribution business. 

    While the family smoothly ran the multi-billion dollar corporation for 37 years, an argument over who should succeed as the company's president in 1993 led to a highly publicized rift in the family and the business. 

    Wallace insisted that his son, Michael, take over as the company's head of operations - an idea that Harrison vehemently opposed. Still, Michael took the reins of the business in 1993, angering Harrison to the point of creating new contracts with McDonald's behind Michael's back. Eventually, the tensions between the uncle and nephew grew too high, and Harrison convinced other family shareholders to demote Wallace to vice-chairman. 

    The argument led to arbitration, where a judge formally removed Wallace from the multi-billion-dollar company (though he remained a shareholder). Undeterred, Wallace set out on a new business venture, acquiring the then-struggling Maple Leaf Foods for a $1.2 billion purchase. Realizing his brother was intent on destroying McCain foods, Harrison promptly fired Michael, who then went to work with his father as Maple Leaf's COO. 

    Despite remaining next-door neighbors throughout the entire ordeal, Harrison and Wallace were so estranged that they did not even see one another. When Wallace learned that Harrison had suffered a heart attack in 2000, Wallace revealed that he knew his brother had lost 30 or 40 lbs but had not spoken to or seen him. 

    152 votes
    Bitter betrayal?
  • 2

    A Technicality Of Owning Shares In The Family Business Caused A Divide Between the Koch Brothers

    Founded in 1940 by Fred Koch Sr., Wood River Oil and Refining Company eventually grew to become Koch Industries - the second-largest privately-held company in America. However, while the Koch empire thrived, a bitter sibling rivalry was culminating behind the scenes. 

    Koch Sr. and his wife, Mary, had four sons - Fred Jr., Charles, and twins David and Bill. Though Fred Jr. wasn't initially interested in the family oil business, his younger brother Charles went to work for their father. When Fred Sr. passed away in 1967, Charles was promoted to chairman of the $250 million company. David went to work for his older brother in 1970, and his twin followed suit the following year. But instead of working as a cohesive unit for the betterment of their family's brand, Bill planned a coup to take over the Koch Industries' board of directors. When the plan was discovered, Charles fired Bill with a $400,000 severance package. 

    Bill may have been excommunicated from the family business, but he still owned shares in the company. This technicality led to an official split between the brothers, with Fred Jr. aligning with Bill to sue Charles and David for the money they believed they were owed in 1983. Ultimately, Charles and David bought Fred Jr. and Bill out of the business for a reported $400 million and $620 million, respectively. Two years later, the brothers argued that their shares had been undervalued and successfully sued Charles and David for another $25 million. 

    The brothers continued to fight over the amount of money they believed they were owed for nearly two decades and were so estranged that they wouldn't even speak to one another at their mother's funeral in 1990. 

    124 votes
    Bitter betrayal?
  • 3

    An Argument Between L'Oréal Owner Liliane Bettencourt And Her Daughter Led To Discoveries Of Tax Evasion And Deceit

    When French chemist Eugène Schueller first invented hair dye in 1907, he stumbled upon a business venture that would ultimately lead to his brand, L'Oréal, becoming the largest cosmetic supplier in the entire world. While his only child, Liliane Bettencourt, remained devoted to her father and his company's legacy, the character trait wasn't passed down to her own child, Françoise Bettencourt Meyers.

    In 2007, Bettencourt Meyers sued François-Marie Banier, a photographer whom she believed received over $1 billion from her aging mother. In addition to bringing the scandal to light, Bettencourt's daughter declared that her mother was unfit to handle her finances. 

    During the trial, tapes provided by the Bettencourt butler proved that the L'Oreal brand owner had committed systematic tax evasion with the help of the French labor minister and his wife. Further investigation revealed that the minister had also illegally provided a massive monetary donation to French presidential candidate Nicolas Sarkozy during his campaign. While Bettencourt Meyers denies that she will sell the company to its partial owner, Nestle, upon her mother's passing, rumors suggest that L'Oreal won't be a French-owned business for long. 

    143 votes
    Bitter betrayal?
  • When German brothers Adolf ("Adi") and Rudolf ("Rudi") Dassler first chose to enter the shoemaking business in the early 1920s, the country was still suffering the bleak financial repercussions of the first World War. Realizing that people would still need shoes, the two partnered to create the Gebruder Dassler firm and quickly set the pace for new innovations regarding footwear. 

    Both being (reportedly somewhat disinterested) members of the Nazi party, athletic shoes became their focus. It wasn't long before Adi invented the first spiked shoe, which Jesse Owens wore in front of Adolf Hitler at the 1936 Olympic games. However, while the company showed outward signs of success and growth, the brothers' relationship was falling apart. They weren't just working in close quarters but also living together in the same house with their respective wives. As World War II drew nearer, the brothers began their own personal war in their tiny hometown of Herzogenaurach. 

    No one is certain as to why the brothers grew so cross with one another, but relatives and others who lived in the town of 24,000 surmise that one of the brothers slept with his sibling's wife. As tensions mounted, even war couldn't stop the family feud. Rudolf repeatedly went AWOL to drop in on his brother after he was called to service, convinced that Adi was plotting against him while he was away fighting. When the war ended, and the “denazification” process began, the two tried to frame each other for being the bigger Nazi sympathizer. Rudi ended up imprisoned for a year, and was convinced his brother was responsible.

    Realizing that they could no longer work together, the Dassler brothers split the business fairly down to their last dime, each starting his own shoe business in the town. Adi formed Adidas, and Rudi went into business under the name Ruda (which eventually became Puma). 

    With a river dividing the two factories, the family troubles seeped into the entire town. Alliances forced other families to choose who they would work for, essentially segregating Herzogenaurach. Each side of the river had its own set of businesses, and people who worked for one brother didn't associate with anyone who worked with the other. 

    Despite the founders' Nazi sympathies during the war, Jesse Owens' choice of footwear wasn't the only time a Dassler company brought awareness to racism. In 1968, Puma was the only company that provided shoes for Black Olympic track and field participants. When African-Americans Tommie Smith and teammate John Carlos won the gold medal for their event, they raised their Puma shoes in the air (along with a fist that became synonymous with the Black Power movement) in gratitude for the company's sponsorship. 

    162 votes
    Bitter betrayal?
  • 5

    Joe Shoen Staged A Coup To Take Over His Father's U-Haul Business in 1986

    Realizing the untapped market of self-moving resources in America,  husband and wife team L.S. Shoen and Anna Mary Shoen established U-Haul as their family business in 1945. Within a few short years, customers had the option to rent a one-way van or trailer to move their goods anywhere in the United States. By 1955, the company had expanded into Canada. 

    However, when the married couple allowed their eldest son, Samuel, to expand the company to also include video, jet ski, and dance floor rentals, their two other sons, Joe and Mark, grew concerned that they were moving too far away from the business's original motive and branding. Worried that the company would be destroyed if he didn't intervene, Joe staged a coup to take over U-Haul in 1986. 

    Successfully establishing himself as the CEO and essentially firing his father from his own company, Joe's move caused a rift in the family that resulted in 25 years of lawsuits and litigation. At one point, L.S. was so convinced that his son was the family villain that he accused Joe and Mark of murdering their sister-in-law (a paroled rapist later admitted to the crime).

    Sadly,  L.S. took his own life in 1999. 

    133 votes
    Bitter betrayal?
  • 6

    After Larry Flynt Fired His Nephews From Hustler, His Brother Jimmy Argued That The Business Was Originally His Idea

    Jimmy Flynt insists that he helped to found Hustler, the pornography company, with his brother, Larry, in 1974. Unfortunately for Jimmy, Larry and the courtroom disagreed. 

    Initially published as a promotion for his strip club, the first issue of Hustler hit stores in 1974. Within a year, the business had catapulted to success as one of the leading magazines in the industry. While Larry spearheaded the business, Jimmy and his two sons also worked for the company. 

    After a rift in the family, Larry fired Jimmy's two sons, who went on to open their own pornography company using the Flynt name. After suing his nephews for trademark infringement, he fired Jimmy in 2009 - who refused to leave a Cincinnati storefront. Unable to completely force him from the business, Larry opened a competing Hustler store nearby. In 2011, Jimmy filed a suit against his brother, which stated: 

    Hustler retail was Jimmy’s idea, has been highly profitable and has allowed expansion into many other areas and business areas, including gaming. Jimmy opened the first Hustler store and was the first to use the Hustler mark in commerce, in retail. Jimmy literally built Hustler retail from the ground up.

    Despite insisting that half of the company was his, the judge ultimately ruled against Jimmy's claims and awarded sole proprietorship to Larry. Unsatisfied with the decision, Jimmy remarked,

    It's surprising, but there's nothing to do but go forward… We still have some other issues to settle.

    When Larry passed away in 2021, Jimmy came back with a vengeance on his estate - suing Larry's fifth wife and beneficiary for what he believed was his stake in the company. 

    104 votes
    Bitter betrayal?